SRI NALIN RANJAN,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WD-1(3), JSR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain is apportioned in the same proportion as under: P a g e 3 | 7 Ass essment Year : 2014 -15 Sale consideration of flat 1C as per section

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)

3 Ashok Behl Assessment Year: 2014-15 “7.1 During the assessment proceedings, the AO examined the claim of long term capital gain and sought the requisite documents including the possession certificate issued by the local authority. As the appellant could not furnish the requisite documents, the AO held that the capital gain is short term. During the appellate proceedings inter

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

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

3 relates to exemption under section 10(38) of the Act at Rs.10,60,599/-. We notice that the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition in the hands of assessee merely by observing that the said addition should be sustained on substantive basis in the hands of assessee’s husband for arranging the bogus long- term capital gain

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)

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. Dilip Kumar & Namita Pandey ITA Nos.318 & 278/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 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

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)

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. Dilip Kumar & Namita Pandey ITA Nos.318 & 278/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 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

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

3 | 9 Assessment Y ear: 2010-2011 showing that fixed deposit was in the capital gain scheme, which could enable the assessee for making the claim of exemption u/s.54 of the Act. However, it is not disputed that the amount was initially parked in the capital gains account and later on the same was transferred to fixed deposit account

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

gain of Rs. 32,95,110/- u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit of the assessee and the taxability was done as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2017. 3. During the course of appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal

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)

capital gain on sale of agricultural land. Page | Page | Page | I.T.A No.163/Ran/2018 Anand Kumar Dhanuka A.Y. 2011-12 Negating the claim of the appellant it was held that the term 'assessee' used in section 54B/54F cannot be extended to mean the major married daughters. 3

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”).

section 143(3) wherein certain additions were made to assessee's income - Subsequently, assessment was reopened in case of assessee - Reason recorded by Assessing Officer was that in case of search conducted in case of one 'N', it was found that there was a syndicate operating in stock market which created long term capital gain/loss for its beneficiaries - According

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)

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 was holding by the assessee as ‘stock

M/S NANDLAL KESHARDEO,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

capital gains to buy peace and the return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. The AO finally imposed the penalty which was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed that

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

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.)

3. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in ITA No. 197/Ran/2018 for the A.Y 2014­15­16 are as follows:­ The assessee had filed its return of income at Rs. 2,56,133/­. The assessee had sold two property for Rs. 70,00,000/­. The Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and given relief

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy)

gain arising from the said land was claimed to be exempt on the ground that the said land being an agricultural land was not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14). As defined in section 2(14) "capital asset" means property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession

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 gain under section 48. It is applicable in the case of a seller of property and therefore cannot be invoked in case of purchaser of property for the purpose of section 69B. 5.3 Section 69B reads as under: - "Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account Where in any financial year the assessee had made investments

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, amount claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38) stating the same to be penny stock. Complete details with respect to the transactions have been furnished to justify the claim for the same, as such, the addition being made by Ld. AO and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is fit to be deleted. 5. For that

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, amount claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38) stating the same to be penny stock. Complete details with respect to the transactions have been furnished to justify the claim for the same, as such, the addition being made by Ld. AO and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is fit to be deleted. 5. For that