SMT SAROJ AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

sections": ["10(38)", "153A", "250", "147", "143(3)"], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of exemption for Long Term Capital Gain on the sale

SMT. SAROJ AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

Capital Gain (LTCG) arising from the sale of shares. The Assessing Officer made additions based on a search action and the disallowance of the exemption claim.", "held": "The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search or in the assessment proceedings to disbelieve the assessee's claim of LTCG. Relying on the decision

RENU LATA TIWARY,RANCHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.161/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Renu Lata Tiwary…..………….……………............................……….……Appellant Regional Director Animal Husbandry Kanke, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834008. [Pan: Aeept2902C] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(5), Ranchi….....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 15, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 26.09.2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”).

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that information was received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had sold certain immovable property during the assessment year under consideration. On verification of the data available, it was noticed that no capital gains

BIJOY KUMAR AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmaandshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountantmember

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2011–12 declaring a total income of ₹5,56,050, showing income from salary and house property. The assessee also declared Long-Term Capital Gain

KULDIP SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of land and contract work. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014–15 on 30.11.2014, declaring a total income of ₹40,80,800. The case was selected

JAGDISH KUMAR MAHTO,RANCHI vs. RANCHI COMMISSIONER, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.50/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jagdish Kumar Mahto….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Mukhiya House, Kanke Road Ranchi, Konge, Kanke Road, S.O Jharkhand-834008. [Pan: Acnpm5004H] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi...................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.1.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual and filed Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2016-2017 declaring total income of Rs.10,06,440/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer had reasons to believe that the assessee had capital gains

SUDHIR KUMAR JHA,BOKARO STEEL CITY vs. ACIT OR DCIT, CIRCLE-3, BOKARO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

CAPITAL GAINS TAX, OUT OF WHICH CASH WAS\nHANDED OVER TO MY BROTHER SUDHIR KUMAR JHA WITH COPY OF REGISTRY DOCUMENTS\nATTACHED AS ANNEXURES\nS.N.\nREGISTRY\nDATE\nREGISTRY\nDOCUMENT\nREGISTRY\nDONE BY\nREGISTRY DONE\nIN FAVOUR OF\nDOCUMENT NO\nVALUE (Rs.)\n08.12.2010\n100000\nSunil Kumar Jha\nAmilal Yadav\nANNEXURE-1/1\n2\n09.02.2011\n90000\nSunil Kumar Jha\nBibi Navisa Khatoon

AL KABIR POLYTECNIC,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.59/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Al Kabir Polytechnic..…………..…...…………….................……...…..….. Appellant Kabir Welfare Trust, Kapali Kabir Nagar, Mango, Jamshedpur. [Pan: Aaifa3884A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur...………………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

section 250 of the Act. Moreover, if the assessee is, otherwise, entitled to a claim of deduction but due to his ignorance or for some other reason could not claim the same in the return of income, but has raised his claim before the appellate authority, the appellate authority should have looked into the same. The assessee cannot be burdened

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs. BENKO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

250 of the Income Tax Act (the ‘Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income under section 139 of the Act declaring a total income as Nil. The return was processed under section 143(1). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and an assessment under section 143(3) was completed

VIKASH KUMAR TAPADIA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.235/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vikash Kumar Tapadia….........................…...........................……….……Appellant Tapadia Compound, Chowk Bazar, Jugsalai (Jharkhand)-831006.. [Pan: Acnpt2711L] Vs. Ito, Jamshedpur……………………………….……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Arises From Order Dated 03.02.2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter "The Act") By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Hereinafter "The Ld. Cit(A)]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Was Involved In Certain Financial Transaction. However, Assessee Has Not Disclosed The Same In The Return Of Income For The Relevant Year. In View Of The Above Fact After Giving Opportunity As Per Section 148A & Obtaining Approval From The Competent Authority Or U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Was Passed On 30.03.2022. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Requesting The Assessee To File Return Of Income. However, In Compliance To The Notice, The Assessee Did Not Respond & The Ao View That Unexplained Loan U/S 68 Of The Act Of Rs. 9,00,000/- Unexplained Money U/S 69C Of The Act, Rs. 60,44,241/- & Capital Gains Of Rs. 30,54,000/-

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter "the Act") by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter "the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee was involved in certain financial

MANISH KUMAR SAGU(HUF),RANCHI vs. ACIT, C.C.-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.26/Ran/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Manish Kumar Sahu (Huf)..…...………………......................……...…..….. Appellant 201, Krishna Apartment, Ratu Road, Ranchi-834001. [Pan: Aaghm3591N] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Ranchi…..…..………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28 , 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has agitated the confirmation of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132(4) was carried

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

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

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