DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI ANUP CHAWLA, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

capital gains tax calculation. Further the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act was enacted by the Finance

ASHOK BEHL,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Ashok Behl Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi 1St Floor, Samridhi Complex, South Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi – 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpb2438E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

sections 54 and 54F in respect of allotment of flat/house. Since the right in the flat was acquired at the time of booking on 08.11.2009, accordingly the right in the property was held for more than three years before its transfer on 23.11.2013 and therefore, capital gains were, in the nature of Long term capital gains. The Honorable Apex Court

ASHOK KUMAR MALHOTRA,DHANBAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DHANBAD

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy)

capital gains had escaped assessment. As rightly contended by the ld. Counsel for the assessees in this regard, the location of the land from the local limits of Chennai Municipal Corporation was relevant to decide as to whether the said land was an agricultural land in India within the meaning of clause (iii) of sub-section (14) of section 2

NAMITA PANDEY,PALAMAU vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3,, RANCHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 318/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Kumar –Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi [Pan: Adlpk 4085 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. The assessees’s sole substantive ground challenges correctness of both lower authorities action adding capital gains arising from transfer of different residential properties amounting to Rs. 27,20,000/- after applying section

DILIP KUMAR,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 318/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Kumar –Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi [Pan: Adlpk 4085 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. The assessees’s sole substantive ground challenges correctness of both lower authorities action adding capital gains arising from transfer of different residential properties amounting to Rs. 27,20,000/- after applying section

SRI KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH,DALTONGANJ vs. ACIT,CIR-1, RANCHI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 49/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh,...................................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Bbjps0426B] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi & I.T.A. Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh,...................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Afzps8288J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.K. Koley, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 7Th, 2023 1 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh & Ita Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kr. Singh

section 10(38) of the Act and if not whether the said sum is unaccounted money of assessee’s husband. Question No. 2 can arise only if the reply in question no. 1 is negative. We notice that the assessee has filed all necessary details to explain the purchase and sale of equity shares giving rise to capital gain

KONDA KARABI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaykonda Karabi, D.C.I.T., G/15, Nargis, Ashiana Garden Sonari, Circle-1, Vs. Jamshedpur-831011 Jamshedpur. Pan No. Abwpk 3757 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

capital gain on the two properties under Section 143(3) read with section 147 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, partly allowed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Further

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

RAMA SHANKAR PRASAD ,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

capital gain was bogus and accordingly by Page 2 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 115/RAN/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rama Shankar Prasad. issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 25.10.2017 called upon the assessee to furnish the details of claim u/s 10(38) of the Act and also to establish the credibility, genuineness and authenticity of the said transactions

DR. JAYA NARAYAN NAIK vs. THE JOINT C.I.T.,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-2011

2 | 9 Assessment Y ear: 2010-2011 denying the exemption of Rs.26 lakhs u/s.54 of the Act. Ld D.R. referred to the decision of Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of R Vidhyadharan vs DCIT, 131 ITCL 378, wherein, it was held that the deposit of money in fixed deposit does not fulfil the requirements of capital gains

ITO.WD-2(1), RANCHI vs. SHRI NAND BIHARI SHRIVASTAVA, RANCHI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

gain, as he has ignored provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) also ignored the law points involved in the case of difference of consideration value and value taken for stamp duty. 4. Ground no. 1 and 2 relate to relief of Rs. 69,96,455/­ on account of capital

DCIT CIR-3(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S YASH INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

section 131 of I.T.Act, 1961 of Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, Director of the assessee company in which he confirmed and accepted that the short term capital loss was bogus. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified on focusing at the sentence that "he was successful in bringing back his own accounted

SRI ANAND KUMAR DHANUKA ,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.163/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance in the instant lis seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action disallowing section 54F deduction claim of Rs. 27,66,230/-. It is not in dispute that the assessee had invested the corresponding long term capital gain

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

2. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 75000/- and Rs. 1,82,26,700/- made by Ld. AO on account of long term capital gain exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on account of share transaction of M/s Blueprint Securities Pvt. Ltd. Complete details regarding the same was furnished before the authorities below

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

2. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 75000/- and Rs. 1,82,26,700/- made by Ld. AO on account of long term capital gain exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on account of share transaction of M/s Blueprint Securities Pvt. Ltd. Complete details regarding the same was furnished before the authorities below

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

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं.य/

section 56 of the Act are for the purpose of the assessment of capital gains. Such deeming provisions do not suggest that the assessee had actually paid the consideration more than that was mentioned in the agreement or sale deed. The impugned addition made by the Ld. AO on the basis of deeming provisions and taking the difference as unaccounted

NISHA SARAWGI,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2015-16

capital asset into stock-in-trade, there is no profit as no can make profit out of himself. Further, as per amended sub-section(2) of section 45 of the Act, which was inserted by the Taxation Legislation (Amendment Act), 1984 w.e.f. 1.4.1985, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the profits or gains

SRI AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.244/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

2,57,040/-. 9. Ground nos. 3 and 4 relate to short term capital gain of Rs. 43,24,000/- towards purchase a piece of land. 10. At the outset itself, the ld. DR for the revenue pointed out that so far ground no.3 and 4 raised by the assessee is concerned, it is not clear whether the land