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

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

DHARMAVIR KUMAR,PATNA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 4, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dharmavir Kumar Dc/Acit, Circle-4, C/O Naseeb Prasad, Income Tax Department, Lok Paithaninathpur,Narayan Chak, Nayak Jai Prakash Bhavan, New Vs. Phulwari. Dak Bunglow Road, Bihar-800002 Patna-800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Avzpk4382P Assessee By : Shri Sudeep Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

capital gains arising from the transfer (including compulsory acquisition) of such agricultural land is not taxable. Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 inserted section 10(37

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

Section 10(37) of the Act, which reads as under:- 10(37) in the case of an assessee, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, any income chargeable under the head "Capital gains

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

Section 10(37) also says that being an individual or a HUF, any income chargeable under the head capital gain

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

capital gains on the basis of the development agreement is per se arbitrary and illegal and therefore, merit to be set aside. 8. For that other various reasons regular time of hearing.” 4. Before us, the Ld. AR stated that the assessee should not be made to pay a heavy price for ignorance of law and improper guidance

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 gains earned on alleged agricultural land exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. Soon after completion of the assessment, the ld. PCIT, Patna subsequently initiated the proceeding u/s 263 of the Act by issuing show cause notice dated 31.12.2020 stating the following facts to the assessee: “i. The assessee received total compensation amounting

SHARMA NAND SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 94), PATNA

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

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit, Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Going Through The Petition, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The 2 Sharma Nand Singh Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

section 147 on 16.12.2019, wherein he treated an amount of ₹81,66,750/- as long- term capital gain and determined the total income at ₹83,37

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

37 PM SELL 2 1149.80 250 574900.00 0 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/2011 01:10:50 PM SELL 8 1149.80 250 2299600.00 0 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/2011 01:10:54 PM SELL 1 1149.80 250 287450.00 0 5.2. The assessee was confronted with the above findings which emerged from the information received from the NMCE, Ahmedabad. Copy of ledger account of few such

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

37,63,600/- 1. 2. Sri Janak Kumar Singh 43,30,000/- 3. Sri Baramdev Yadav 28,60,400/- 4. Sri Ashok Yadav 32,56,424/- 5. Sri Manish Kumar 1,00,000/- ___________________ Total: 1,43,10,424/- ___________________ 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has not shown this expense separately, in its audit report