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

transfer of Long Term Capital Assets being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund, on which STT is paid, is exempt from taxation point of view. These beneficiary provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been misused by the syndicates to arrange accommodation entry of bogus Long Term Capital Gain through trading

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

transfer of Long Term Capital Assets being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund, on which STT is paid, is exempt from taxation point of view. These beneficiary provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been misused by the syndicates to arrange accommodation entry of bogus Long Term Capital Gain through trading

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

transfer of Long Term Capital Assets being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund, on which STT is paid, is exempt from taxation point of view. These beneficiary provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been misused by the syndicates to arrange accommodation entry of bogus Long Term Capital Gain through trading

UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royudaykumar Vyas, Ito, Ward – 1(5) Flat No. 402, Lepresting Vs Nagpur Apartment, Plot No. 105- 106, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Pan : Aarpv 4578 K Assessee Respondent

price. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of land development and plot trading, filed his return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring total income

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. SH. SURESH , PATNA

transfer of lands as arose to the assesse. (ii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding Rupam Tower as Residential House and has erred in allowing deduction u/s 54 to the LTCG arising to the assessee. (iii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the claim of the assessee regarding the cost of construction of the Rupam Tower building. He also erred