DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. JYOTI FALOR, JAIPUR

ITA 150/JPR/2020Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 February 2022AY 2014-15110 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO. The AO's reliance on a retracted statement without corroborating evidence was found to be insufficient to disallow the claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) as exempt income under Section 10(38) from the sale of shares. Following a search and seizure action, the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on account of bogus LTCG and unexplained commission expenditure.

What were the issues?

Whether LTCG claimed as exempt is bogus and whether a retracted statement can be the sole basis for assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 68,Section 69C,Section 132(4),Section 131,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(24)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 753/JP/2019
ITA No. 748/JP/2019
ITA No. 750/JP/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” VC JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 753/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Smt. Saroj Parwal, Vs.

Central Circle-3, 376, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur.

Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ADYPP 8357N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 748/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, M/s. Hari Narain Parwal, HUF, Vs.

Central Circle-3, 376, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur.

Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AABHH 6685K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 750/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, M/s. Bitthal Das Parwal, HUF Vs.

Central Circle-3, 376, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur.

Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AACHB 8343P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Responden

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →