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

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 arising from transfer of different residential properties amounting to Rs. 27,20,000/- after applying section 50C of the Act. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect read as under: “5

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 arising from transfer of different residential properties amounting to Rs. 27,20,000/- after applying section 50C of the Act. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect read as under: “5

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

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 from sale of equity shares of M/s. Yuma Vayapar Pvt. Limited at Rs.10,60,599/-. Ld. Assessing Officer based on the information received from Calcutta Stock Exchange about doubtful credential of the company came to a conclusion that the said gain is in the nature of accommodation entry and the exemption is claimed to avoid taxes and accordingly

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

5. Replying to above, ld D.R. drew our attention towards paragraph 3 & 3.1 of the first appellate order and submitted that no copy of capital gains account or STDR was filed by the assessee showing that the fixed deposit was made by the assessee in the capital gains account scheme and certificate was dubious and, therefore, the authorities below were

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

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 of the assessee by upholding the order of Ld. AO. 4. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we note that undisputedly that M/s. Kailash Auto

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

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 ignoring the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the I.T Act, 1961. 5. Brief facts qua the issue

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

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

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

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

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)

capital gain was unjustified and illegal. v. For that interest u/s 234A and 234B should have been charged on the returned income and not on the assessed income following the decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court. vi. For that other grounds in detail will be argued at the time of hearing. Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal Assessment Year

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Sections 4, 5, 15 (Salaries), 22 (Income from house property), 28 (Profits and gains of business), 45 (Capital gain) and 56 (Income

SRI GAURAV PALRIWAL,RANCHI vs. ITO WATD-1(3), RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 10 & 11/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13 & 2013-14) Sri Vishal Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Ishatvam, Flat No. 801, 8Th Floor, Central Circle-1 Vs. Kanke Road, Ranchi-834008. Ranchi. Pan No. Ahnpp 0913 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 12/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13) Sri Gaurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Aiapp 8110 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 13/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Sri Saurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Kolkata. Ranchi. Pan No. Atcpp 9277 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 14/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Priti Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Amdpp 5673 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 15/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Renu Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Ranchi. Kolkata-700052 Pan No. Ajlpp 9129 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Gains claimed U/s 10(38) to the extent that the identical issue was involved in case of one of the family member (brother - Saurav Palriwal), wherein the identical share transactions have been accepted by the department and no adverse findings were drawn. 5. For that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition

SMT PRITI PALRIWAL,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 10 & 11/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13 & 2013-14) Sri Vishal Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Ishatvam, Flat No. 801, 8Th Floor, Central Circle-1 Vs. Kanke Road, Ranchi-834008. Ranchi. Pan No. Ahnpp 0913 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 12/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13) Sri Gaurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Aiapp 8110 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 13/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Sri Saurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Kolkata. Ranchi. Pan No. Atcpp 9277 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 14/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Priti Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Amdpp 5673 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 15/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Renu Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Ranchi. Kolkata-700052 Pan No. Ajlpp 9129 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Gains claimed U/s 10(38) to the extent that the identical issue was involved in case of one of the family member (brother - Saurav Palriwal), wherein the identical share transactions have been accepted by the department and no adverse findings were drawn. 5. For that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition