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

section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares on basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not concerned with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so-called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating principles of natural justice, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made by Assessing

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

section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares on basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not concerned with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so-called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating principles of natural justice, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made by Assessing

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

section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares on basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not concerned with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so-called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating principles of natural justice, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made by Assessing

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

section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares on basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not concerned with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so-called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating principles of natural justice, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made by Assessing

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

section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares on basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not concerned with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so-called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating principles of natural justice, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made by Assessing

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]

6. The issue raised in ground no. 1 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) quashing the order passed u/s 154 of the Act dated 24.02.2020 by the AO. 7. Facts in brief are that the assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was framed by the AO vide order dated

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]

6. The issue raised in ground no. 1 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) quashing the order passed u/s 154 of the Act dated 24.02.2020 by the AO. 7. Facts in brief are that the assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was framed by the AO vide order dated

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]

6. The issue raised in ground no. 1 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) quashing the order passed u/s 154 of the Act dated 24.02.2020 by the AO. 7. Facts in brief are that the assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was framed by the AO vide order dated

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]

6. The issue raised in ground no. 1 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) quashing the order passed u/s 154 of the Act dated 24.02.2020 by the AO. 7. Facts in brief are that the assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was framed by the AO vide order dated

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]

6. The issue raised in ground no. 1 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) quashing the order passed u/s 154 of the Act dated 24.02.2020 by the AO. 7. Facts in brief are that the assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was framed by the AO vide order dated

VINOD YADAV,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA

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

6)", "Section 50C", "Section 54F" ], "issues": "Whether the Joint Development Agreement constituted a 'transfer' of property leading to capital gains

RENU DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 672/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Renu Devi,……………………………....….………Appellant D/79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Algpd4522P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

6(2) Patna issued notices under section s147, 148,143(2) and 142 (1) of income tax act 1961 to the appellant-assessee in respect of escaped income for capital gain

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

gains. 4. For that section 48 is the charging section and section 50C is just procedural in nature as to what would be the full value of consideration for the purpose of section 48 Dharmavir Kumar; A.Y. 2016-17 of the Act and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in justifying the addition made under section

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 96 of the Act. 6. For that the computation of capital gain on account of compensation received by appellant

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

capital gain of Rs.64,02,144/- by following the provisions of Section 50C of the Act and the same is adjudicated as under:- ITA No.: 18/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Lalmuni Devi. 5.1. On receipt of information under section 133(6

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) of the L. T. Act,\n1961. Before the department the assessee duly filed copy

HARI NARAYAN GUPTA (HUF),PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

6 & 7 applicable Fs.1,33,85,300/-\nas per Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1951)\n9) Less: Indexed cost of land\n10) Long Term 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.

capital gain earned by the assessee is Rs.35,09,213/-. 10. Considering these aspects, we find that the ld. Assessing Officer has not made proper application of mind and had no proper reason to belief before suspecting that income has escaped to be assessed in the hands of the assessee. Reason to believe cannot be reason to suspect. There must