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

Long Term 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

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

Long Term 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

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

Long Term 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

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

Long Term 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

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

Long Term 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

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]

long term capital gain of Rs. 7,31,02,196/- vide order dated 10.12.2019. 15. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue as well as on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO during the appellate proceedings and in the remand report

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]

long term capital gain of Rs. 7,31,02,196/- vide order dated 10.12.2019. 15. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue as well as on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO during the appellate proceedings and in the remand report

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]

long term capital gain of Rs. 7,31,02,196/- vide order dated 10.12.2019. 15. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue as well as on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO during the appellate proceedings and in the remand report

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]

long term capital gain of Rs. 7,31,02,196/- vide order dated 10.12.2019. 15. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue as well as on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO during the appellate proceedings and in the remand report

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]

long term capital gain of Rs. 7,31,02,196/- vide order dated 10.12.2019. 15. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue as well as on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO during the appellate proceedings and in the remand report

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

long term capital gains and consequently raising tax demand of 39,63,956/- inclusive of interest U/s. 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. b. The other grounds of appeal here under are urged without prejudice to one another: 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings and added a sum of Rs. 1,33,85,300/- as long-term capital gain, alleging a transfer

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

long term capital gain may please be cancelled and the demanded tax may also be waived on cancellation. 8. On the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the clauses of the JDA and its term & condition for the exchange of transaction. According to the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee will get from a multi

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

long term capital gain may please be cancelled and the demanded tax may also be waived on cancellation. 8. On the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the clauses of the JDA and its term & condition for the exchange of transaction. According to the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee will get from a multi

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

reassessment order as passed is fit to be declared annulled. 5. For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the ground of the appellant that the assessment in this case has been completed without service of notice u/s 143(2). The Assessment Order as passed and confirmed by learned CIT(A) is ab-initio void

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

long term 5 capital loss so interest u/s 234B should not be levied” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed any return of income for the year under consideration despite entering into and registering a Land Development Agreement with House-Con Consultant & Developer during the FY 2012-13 relevant

PRABHU DAYAL BHARTIYA ,PATNA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-4, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.372/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Prabhu Dayal Bhartiya (Huf)….………. …………………....Appellant 701, Shanti Kunj, Chajjubagh, Patna, Bihar- 800001.. [Pan: Aachp7738Q] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-4, Patna…....…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 15, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2025 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Hindu Undivided Family (Huf), Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013– 14 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹6,120/-. The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Basis Of Information Received From The Investigation Wing That The Assessee Was A Beneficiary Of Accommodation Entries In The Form Of Long-Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) From The Sale Of Shares Amounting To ₹55,16,804/- Received From M/S. Aayan Commercial Pvt. Ltd. & Its Associate Concerns. It

Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from the sale of shares amounting to ₹55,16,804/- received from M/s. Aayan Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and its associate concerns. It I.T.A. No.372/Pat/2025 Prabhu Dayal Bhartiya (HUF) was further reported that the assessee had claimed exemption of ₹36,95,540/- under section 10(38) of the Act on account of such alleged bogus LTCG

SUNITA AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on this issue

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

long term capital gain of Rs.1,32,80,076/- which is exempt u/s. 38 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reply of the assessee did not find favour with the AO. After discussing the modus operandi of money laundering by way of purchase and sale of penny stock, the AO has concluded that since there were bogus penny stocks