SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gain claimed as exempt by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal has confirmed the addition so made. 7. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a paper book containing 218 pages. Ld. Counsel for the assessee emphasized that the approval from the competent authority for issuing notice u/s. 148 was obtained

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gain claimed as exempt by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal has confirmed the addition so made. 7. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a paper book containing 218 pages. Ld. Counsel for the assessee emphasized that the approval from the competent authority for issuing notice u/s. 148 was obtained

ASHUTOSH JHA,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD -2(5), RANCHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं.य/

19-07- 2012 and the payment through cheque was made. However, the date of cheque was mentioned of the next day i.e 20-07-2012. The fact itself shows that the part payment was made through cheque as per terms of the agreement. Copy of the bank account has been placed on record, which shows that said cheque that dated

SMITA,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 3(4),, CHAIBASA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

19 declaring total income of ₹6,07,870. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on the ground that the assessee had sold a flat for a consideration of ₹30 lakhs, whereas the stamp duty value as per State valuation authority was ₹46.50 lakhs, resulting in alleged escapement of income chargeable to tax.The Assessing Officer completed

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain only after an explanation sought by Assessing Officer and it was not a case of suo-moto explanation, Assessing Officer liable to invoke penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. reported in 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/ [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain only after an explanation sought by Assessing Officer and it was not a case of suo-moto explanation, Assessing Officer liable to invoke penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. reported in 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/ [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected