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

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

c) is also initiated for inaccurate particular of income of Rs.1,25,05,763/-“. 4. Dissatisfied with this assessment order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). According to the ld. CIT(Appeals), the appeal was time- barred by 150 days. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has considered the explanation of the assessee

ITO, WARD-4(1), PATNA vs. JAGDISH RAY, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

Capital gains" arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where— (i) such land is situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; (ii) such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S TAKSHILA EDUCATIONAL SOCITY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

C-404, Basement, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024 [PAN:AABAT9904A Appearances by: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Date of concluding the hearing : July 07, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : July 14, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President

MASUDAN TANTI,BHAGALPUR vs. CIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

13. There is no income from other sources. Sir, you will not find any evidence which shows that I have got other sources of income.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Ld. AO received information that the assessee had deposited cash within the financial year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 in a savings bank account

ACIT, PATNA vs. NEW ERA SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT WELFARE SOCIETY, PATNA

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

2. Before us, right at the outset, the Ld. DR pointed out the provisions of section 13(10) of the Act and used that to support the action of Ld. AO. The Ld. AR on the other hand stated that the Form 10B could not be filed due to ignorance of Rules and procedures and the same was prepared

AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

C) passed by the ITO Ward 4(1), Patna through speed post on 06.04.2024, than appellant immediate consult to another Advocate for filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Appellant further pray that appellant having great interest in the case. Therefore on the ground of natural justice kindly condone the delay for filing of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

gains of business or profession’ or “income from other sources” shall be determined according to the method of accountancy followed by the assessee, but such method ought to be in accordance with the conditions enumerated in sub- clause (2) of this section. The sub-clause (2) further provides that Central Government would notify in its Official Gazette from time

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

capital gain by Ld. assessing officer in passing his order ignoring & setting aside all facts about actual sale consideration which has been received by the appellant. 10. For that the CIT (Appeal) grossly erred in passing ex-parte order confirming levy and demand of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C levied and demanded in the order passed by the Ld. assessing

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

capital gain by Ld. assessing officer in passing his order ignoring & setting aside all facts about actual sale consideration which has been received by the appellant. 10. For that the CIT (Appeal) grossly erred in passing ex-parte order confirming levy and demand of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C levied and demanded in the order passed by the Ld. assessing

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2. For that the appellate order dated 30/05/2025 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076580474(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for the Assessment Year 2015-16 by the ld. First Appellate Authority, viz. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is bad both

AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3(1), GAYA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2. For that the appellate order dated 15/01/2025 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072165748(1) passed under Section 250 of I.T.A. No.: 101/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amrendra Pratap Singh. the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the ld. First Appellate Authority, viz, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless

VEENA MISHRA THROUGH NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT.CIR-1, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

13. For that the ld. Assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act in the fact and circumstances of this case and Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the same. 14. For that the ld. Assessing officer has erred in charging interest under the provisions