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

Capital Gain of Rs.10,35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna

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

Capital Gain of Rs.10,35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna

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

Capital Gain of Rs.10,35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna

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

Capital Gain of Rs.10,35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna

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

Capital Gain of Rs.10,35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid

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

5),\nKatihar (Bihar)\nRespondent\nAppearances by:\nAssessee represented by\nDepartment represented by\nDate of concluding the hearing\nDate of pronouncing the order\nShri K N Prasad, Advocate\nShri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT\n20.01.2025\n04.02.2025\nORDER\nPER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:\n1. In this case, the present appeal emanates from order u/s 250 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter

BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

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

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

capital gain : Rs.1,25,05,763/- Total income : Rs.1,27,58,955/- Or Rs.1,27,58,960/- Assessed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on a total income of Rs.1,27,58,960/-. Issue Demand Notice, Challan and a copy of the Order to the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated for inaccurate particular

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

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

11 (1), Mumbai [2015] 58 taxmann.com\n186 (Mumbai)/[2015] 40 ITR(T) 487 (Mumbai)] held as under:-\n\"31. The contention of the Id. D.R. that assessee has accepted Rs. 13.75 crores from\nGodrej Properties Ltd. pursuant to the Development Agreement, therefore, it amounts\nto transfer of the land to Godrej Properties Ltd. does not find any merit. There

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5:57.5 basis with Builder and land owner) 13385.3 SFT\n6) Estimated cost of construction of Super Build Area (including\nparking area) @ square feet X ₹1000/-\n1,33,85,300/-\n7) Value of consideration of land as Land Development Agreement in\npart of assessee\n25,43,200/-\n8) Total value of consideration of property (higher of 6 & 7 applicable Fs.1

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.

5 I.T.A. No. 211/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sangeeta Goel 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. Reopening of the assessment proceedings is in challenge before us. Admittedly, the assessee had claimed long term capital gain in its regular return of income furnished on 27/07/2013 and details of the transactions of purchase and sale

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