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 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

Section 132(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) in the case of M/s Nani Steel Group of cases located at Ranchi on 22/07/2015 during which the assessee offered undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and paid the due taxes while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A

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

section, it is clear that capital gain is chargeable in the year in which such conversion took place and capital gain is charged u/s.48 accordingly. In the instant case the conversion took place on 4.2.2010 as per the agreement entered into by and between developer and the assessee. Accordingly, the capital gain whether short term or long term depending upon

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)

1,08,000 Registration Fee Rs. 81,301 Rs. 22, 10, 501 Short Term Capital Gain Rs. 43,89,499 Therefore, the claim of the assessee regarding long term capital gain was not accepted by assessing officer and assessing officer treated a sum of Rs.43,89,499/- as short term capital gain and added to the total income

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)

1), applicable in the instant case. In short, in a case of transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, section 48 is to be read along with section 50C for computing the 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

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)

1), applicable in the instant case. In short, in a case of transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, section 48 is to be read along with section 50C for computing the 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

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

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

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. We also notice that the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in the Original Complaint No. 204/2013 in 9 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh

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

1 | 9 Assessment Y ear: 2010-2011 evidence of the capital gain deposit account and application money with West Bengal Housing Board.” 3. Apropos this ground, ld A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition on account of disallowance of Rs.26,00,000/- u/s.54 of the Act by observing that the amount was transferred to STDR

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 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)

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

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

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

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 131 of the Act and on the basis of the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors were not established. 2 I.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Golden

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.)

4. Ground nos. 1 & 2 relates to deletion of addition of Rs. 1,80,52,500/- u/s. 69B r.w.s 50C of the Act. 5. Brief facts qua the issue are that assesse had purchased an immovable property for Rs. 62,10,000/- which included the price of the property at Rs. 45,00,000/- and stamp duty

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. Ground no. 1