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

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by granting relief of Rs. 1,04,58,374/- on account of long term capital gain arising out of compensation against the land acquisition. The addition was based on the basis of information received from District Land Acquisition Officer which

DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & SONS HUF,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PATNA

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

36,76,169/-. Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed as the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone a delay of 778 days in filing of the said appeal. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted

PRAMOD KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6(5), PATNA

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

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

ii) That the Id CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in treating the handing over of the demised land as transfer of property. (iii) That the Id CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in computing the capital gain tax on transfer of such property. (iv) That the Id CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in invoking the provisions of section

ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA vs. M/S SUN COMTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

ii) are regarding deletion of the addition of ₹1,04,90,377/- by the Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the fact that the assessee had booked contrived loss of commodity trading done in a synchronized manner to evade tax while ground no. (iii) is relating to the case being covered under the exceptional clause of the CBDT Circular for filing