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

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

1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of compensation of Rs.4,71,91,650 in the hands of the appellant u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the head capital gains. 3. For that section

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

37) of the I T Act, 1961 and therefore the treatment of long term capital gains in the hands of the assessee is unjustified. In the present case there is clear provision of the RFCTILAAR Act, clarified that compensation received in respect of award or agreement which has been exempted from levy of income tax vide section

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 to Rs. 1

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

sections and on the basis of report received from the Land Acquisition Officer and Circle Officer, the land in question is taxable u/s 45(5) of the Income-tax Act,1961 as Capital Gain. However, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of purchase of agriculture land and Rs.25

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

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

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 ₹83,37,250/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, due to non-compliance on various dates, the appeal was disposed of without considering the issues on merits. Instead

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