AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

section 68 by treating impugned Long term Capital Gain as bogus - Whether for Page 11 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

section 68 by treating impugned Long term Capital Gain as bogus - Whether for Page 11 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

section 68 by treating impugned Long term Capital Gain as bogus - Whether for Page 11 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

section 68 by treating impugned Long term Capital Gain as bogus - Whether for Page 11 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

section 68 by treating impugned Long term Capital Gain as bogus - Whether for Page 11 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain was not included in the return of income on the ground that the said sale deed was cancelled as per terms and conditions agreed between the assessee and the buyer of property. The Ld. A.R also submitted that no notice has been issued and served upon the assessee to invoke the provisions of section

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain was not included in the return of income on the ground that the said sale deed was cancelled as per terms and conditions agreed between the assessee and the buyer of property. The Ld. A.R also submitted that no notice has been issued and served upon the assessee to invoke the provisions of section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain was not included in the return of income on the ground that the said sale deed was cancelled as per terms and conditions agreed between the assessee and the buyer of property. The Ld. A.R also submitted that no notice has been issued and served upon the assessee to invoke the provisions of section

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain was not included in the return of income on the ground that the said sale deed was cancelled as per terms and conditions agreed between the assessee and the buyer of property. The Ld. A.R also submitted that no notice has been issued and served upon the assessee to invoke the provisions of section

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain was not included in the return of income on the ground that the said sale deed was cancelled as per terms and conditions agreed between the assessee and the buyer of property. The Ld. A.R also submitted that no notice has been issued and served upon the assessee to invoke the provisions of section

UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royudaykumar Vyas, Ito, Ward – 1(5) Flat No. 402, Lepresting Vs Nagpur Apartment, Plot No. 105- 106, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Pan : Aarpv 4578 K Assessee Respondent

11 as the said provision is confined only to capital assets”. The said view has been consistently followed by various Benches of the Tribunal, including the Mumbai Bench in Inderlok Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 5428/Mum/2010), wherein it has been held that section 50C, being a deeming provision, cannot be extended to transactions involving stock-in-trade. Respectfully

VISHWAMBHAR CHAUDHARI,KATIHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), KATIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gains on presumption and surmises. The case of the\nassessee has not been considered in proper perspective. The assessee duly\napprised to the department that the property sold was agricultural land and any\ngains on the same was exempt under provision of section 10(37) of the L. T. Act,\n1961. Before the department the assessee duly filed copy

HARI NARAYAN GUPTA (HUF),PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain in the year 1999- 2000 and hence, there would\nnot be any scope to hold that the transfer of land had taken place in 1991 as claimed\nby the Department. The nature of development agreement has been properly\nappreciated by the Tribunal for rejecting the contention of the Department regarding\ntransfer having taken place in 1991.\nSince both

SANGEETA GOEL,PATNA vs. CCIT, NFAC, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 211/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sangeeta Goel Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax/Nfac 506, Santosha Complex Vs Fraser Road Bander Bagicha Patna - 800001 [Pan: Acbpg0887A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. A. That The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Based On Alleged Information Of Bogus Trade Amounting To Rs. 35,09,213/- In The Shares & Securities Of M/S Ayaan Commercial Pvt Ltd Being Bereft Of Fact & Assessee Having Not Carried On Any Such Transaction, The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law. B. That The Ld. A.O. Having Rejected The Objection Of The Assessee Although These Facts Are Brought On Record His Action In Doing So Is Bad In Law. C. That The Reopening U/S 147 Was Based On Mere Suspicion & Surmises, The Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law.

capital gain earned by the assessee is Rs.35,09,213/-. 10. Considering these aspects, we find that the ld. Assessing Officer has not made proper application of mind and had no proper reason to belief before suspecting that income has escaped to be assessed in the hands of the assessee. Reason to believe cannot be reason to suspect. There must

VINOD YADAV,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain in the year 1999- 2000 and hence, there would not be any\nscope to hold that the transfer of land had taken place in 1991 as claimed by the\nDepartment. The nature of development agreement has been properly appreciated by\nthe Tribunal for rejecting the contention of the Department regarding transfer having\ntaken place in 1991.\nSince both

MANOJ KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4(4), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

section 46 of the RFCTLARR Act says otherwise but the assessee unable to produce the requisite documents to justify the exemption as claimed by the assessee in his submission and grounds of appeal taken to the assessee. The ld. Counsel is also unable to demonstrate that the circular issued by the CBDT noted supra is squarely applicable 9. Considering

ASHA DEVI L/H OF LATE GYAN CHAND PRASAD,PATNA vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Capital Gain. The statement of non taxability based on Circular No. 36/2016 dated 25/10/2016 Issued by CBDT With relying on the provision of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013. CIRCULAR 36/2016 dated 25/10/2016 issued by CBDT Non-taxability of the compensation received by the land owners for the land acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

DOLLY GHOSH,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

capital gains chargeable under section 45; (vii) the profits and gains of any business of insurance carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co- operative society, computed in accordance with section 44 or any surplus taken to be such profits and gains by virtue of provisions contained in the First Schedule; (viia) the profits and gains