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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessee’s appeal

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessee’s appeal

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessee’s appeal

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessee’s appeal

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessee’s appeal

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 on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- and accordingly called upon the assessee to furnish the details of names and addresses of the persons along with confirmation letters, bank statements and other evidences. The assessee replied the queries

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 on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- and accordingly called upon the assessee to furnish the details of names and addresses of the persons along with confirmation letters, bank statements and other evidences. The assessee replied the queries

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 on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- and accordingly called upon the assessee to furnish the details of names and addresses of the persons along with confirmation letters, bank statements and other evidences. The assessee replied the queries

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 on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- and accordingly called upon the assessee to furnish the details of names and addresses of the persons along with confirmation letters, bank statements and other evidences. The assessee replied the queries

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 on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- and accordingly called upon the assessee to furnish the details of names and addresses of the persons along with confirmation letters, bank statements and other evidences. The assessee replied the queries

HARIHAR PRASAD,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 3. For that the computation of capital gain and levy of tax against

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

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

capital gains tax under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal felt that substantive justice required remanding the case back to the CIT(A).", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["250

LALMUNI DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 dated 18.11.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Section 48. Capital gain

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.

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 and securities

SONAM RAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to I.T.A. Nos.02&03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha & Sonam Raj as the ‘Act’) respectively. Since the facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical and the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. I.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 is taken as lead

VIBHUTI BHUSHAN SINHA,DWARKA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to I.T.A. Nos.02&03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha & Sonam Raj as the ‘Act’) respectively. Since the facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical and the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. I.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 is taken as lead

SAROJ DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains at ₹81,66,750/-, which was added to the total income as per the return shown at ₹1,60,000/- and the total income was assessed at ₹83,26,750/-. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices of hearing to the assessee and since there

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 22.01.2025, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072402022(1) challenging the addition of capital gains arising out of compensation received towards compulsory acquisition by the Govt. of Bihar and challenging 2 Manoj Kumar