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

9]” iv) CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He 463 ITR 711 “Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny stock and thus, he made an addition of same under sect ion 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor of stock exchange

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

9]” iv) CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He 463 ITR 711 “Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny stock and thus, he made an addition of same under sect ion 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor of stock exchange

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

9]” iv) CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He 463 ITR 711 “Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny stock and thus, he made an addition of same under sect ion 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor of stock exchange

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

9]” iv) CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He 463 ITR 711 “Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny stock and thus, he made an addition of same under sect ion 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor of stock exchange

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

9]” iv) CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He 463 ITR 711 “Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny stock and thus, he made an addition of same under sect ion 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor of stock exchange

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

9. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the lower authorities failed to appreciate the provision of section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not I.T.A. Nos.02&03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha & Sonam Raj be applicable as actual transfer of property as per section 53A of the Transfer of Property

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

9. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the lower authorities failed to appreciate the provision of section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not I.T.A. Nos.02&03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha & Sonam Raj be applicable as actual transfer of property as per section 53A of the Transfer of Property

PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

9 Punrasar Jute Park Limited assessee in the form of copy of confirmation, income tax return, Bank account statement, audit report etc. It is also observed that ld. Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to both the loan creditor companies to which sufficient compliance was made along with the documents asked

DOLLY GHOSH,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

v) of section 28; (vi) any capital gains chargeable under section 45; (vii) the profits and gains of any business of insurance carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co- operative society, computed in accordance with section 44 or any surplus taken to be such profits and gains by virtue of provisions contained in the First Schedule

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)

section 46 of the RFCTLARR Act says otherwise but the assessee unable to produce the requisite documents to justify the exemption as claimed by the assessee in his submission and grounds of appeal taken to the assessee. The ld. Counsel is also unable to demonstrate that the circular issued by the CBDT noted supra is squarely applicable 9. Considering

MASUDAN TANTI,BHAGALPUR vs. CIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

capital account etc. A copy of the notice u/s 142(1) dated 02.12.2021 was also got served physically through the Verification Unit but despite being provided with several opportunities, no compliance was made nor any reply was filed. Meanwhile, information was collected from UCO Bank and it was found that the total amount credited in the bank account

KAMLESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

1. For that the order of the A.O. passed in the above case without giving\nproper opportunity of being heard to the appellant is bad in law and against\nthe principals of natural justice.\n2. For that the order of learned C.I.T.-(A), NFAC passed in the above case\nwithout verifying authenticity of the information based on which\nassessment

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

9. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Long Term Capital Gain determined by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) for tax purpose is arbitrary and unjust on grounds that there is no transfer within the meaning of section 53A of the T. P. Act or u/s 2(47)(v

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 gain earned by the assessee claiming exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act allowed by the AO. However, mere change of opinion of ld. PCIT in respect of issue cannot be reason to invoke revisionary powers under section263. We respectfully relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Reliance Payment Solutions Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner

KRIPA SHANKER,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

9. For that any other grounds, if any, may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and during the year under consideration he had carried out financial transactions in landed property, therefore, the assessment was ITA No.: 117/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kripa Shanker. reopened

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

v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 , a three- judge Bench of this Court discussed the scope of section 31(3)(a ) of the 1922 Act, which 8 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction is almost identical to section 251(1)(a) of the 1961 Act. The Court held as under: "...If an appeal lies, section

SANJU SINHA,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Dr. Manish Borad, Am Sanju Sinha, Ito, Ward 6(1) Khajpura, B. V College, Patna-800 001 Khajpura, Patna-800014, Vs. Bihar Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apkps0784A Assessee By : Shri Prasoon Kr., Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2024

V College, Patna-800 001 Khajpura, Patna-800014, Vs. Bihar Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. APKPS0784A Assessee by : Shri Prasoon Kr., AR Revenue by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR Date of hearing: 10.09.2024 Date of pronouncement : 24.09.2024 O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, has erred in holding that the cash deposits aggregating to Rs.62,25,000 in State Bank of India during the Financial Year 2014-15 corresponding to Assessment Year 2015-16 is unexplained money under section