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

short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 26.12.2019 by the ITO, Ward-1(5), Nagpur for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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