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

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

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)

capital gains chargeable under section 45. Dilip Kumar & Namita Pandey ITA Nos.318 & 278/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 5.4. Further, it is an admitted position that the appellant did not claim deduction u/s 54 of the Act in his return of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India

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)

capital gains chargeable under section 45. Dilip Kumar & Namita Pandey ITA Nos.318 & 278/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 5.4. Further, it is an admitted position that the appellant did not claim deduction u/s 54 of the Act in his return of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India

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

capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act was genuine and justified and in no way can be held to be assessed in the hands of assessee’s husband Shri Kamlesh Kr. Singh. Thus the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition substantively in the hands of her husband. Since the alleged LTCG is a genuine

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

4. Ld A.R. also submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.3,00,000/- u/.s.54 of the Act by observing that this amount was advanced to West Bengal Housing Board and no evidence was filed that this amount was invested in capital gains account. Ld counsel vehemently pointed out that merely because no allotment was made

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

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. Drawing strength from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in view

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)

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-in-trade’ or as capital assets. Without being

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.)

capital 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

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

4. For that in any view of the case the authorities below not justified in making the addition of the long term 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

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

4. For that in any view of the case the authorities below not justified in making the addition of the long term 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

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 in real estate transaction in respect of seller only and not for the purchaser. [5.8] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the, case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 has held that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled, is always on the Revenue. It is for the Revenue to show

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

GOLDEN GOENKA COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Rajgaj Traders Pvt. Ltd.)............................……….……Appellant 25A, S.P Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Bhawanipore, Kol-25, [Pan: Aabcr7503F] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kumar Pranab, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Cit(A)”], Dated 21.12.2018, Arising Out Of Assessment Framed Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, The Sum & Substance Of Which Is That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of ₹4,73,00,000 Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Under Section 68 Of The Act Towards Share Capital & Share Premium, Ignoring The Documentary Evidences Placed On Record & Without Conducting Any Independent Enquiry. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011–12 Declaring Total Income Of ₹16,67,088. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

capital gains and finally assessed the total income at ₹4,89,67,090 vide order dated 21.12.2018. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition holding that in absence of compliance to summons under section

SHRI NARESH PRASAD,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-2(1) , HZB

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.116/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Naresh Prasad, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Lakhe, Korrah, Hazaribag Hazaribag-825301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Amapp 8122 E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Verma, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

4,43,167.00 as short-term capital gain without quoting any section of income tax act. Assessee has purchased 32 decimal

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy)

4. There is no dispute that the assessee had indeed sold its land in question measuring 5.33 acres situated in village Mamidipally Mandal Saroonagar district Ranga Reddy in erstwhile Andhra Pradesh during the relevant previous year; The sole dispute in the instant lis that arises for our apt adjudication is as to whether the assessee's land sold

SRI RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SUKESH KUMAR,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.194/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sri Ramakrishnan Nair Sukesh Kumar.…...…..................……...…..….. Appellant Quarter No.R I/1, Birla Institute Of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi-835215. [Pan: Abtpk1985G] Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Ranchi…..……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Ku. Koley , Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 23, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 07, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 54F, if an assessee invests an amount of capital gain for purchase of new house within two years or constructs a new house within three years, then the deduction of capital gains is admissible. 4