NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

long term capital gain. The reliance is also placed on the following decisions: Pr. CIT vs Jatin Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) S 68 Bogus Capital Gains: A transaction cannot be treated as fraudulent if the assessee has furnished documentary proof and proved the identity of the purchasers

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

bogus long term capital gain. The CIT(A) has discussed\neverything except the facts of the case. The appellant has given ample documentary\nevidence of purchase

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus long term capital gain. The CIT(A) has discussed everything except the facts of the case. The appellant has given ample documentary evidence of purchase

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

bogus long term capital gain. The CIT(A) has discussed\neverything except the facts of the case. The appellant has given ample\ndocumentary evidence of purchase

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus long term capital gain, whereas the assessee has not earned any exempted income or any capital gain income during the year under consideration. The learned AO did not provide any material during the assessment proceedings or even after framing the assessment order on which he has relied upon and made the addition. The Learned AO has also not allowed

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus entity and further went on holding that long term capital gain earned by assessee on sale of shares of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. is merely an accommodation entry and exemption claimed u/s 10(38) was denied (even though assessee has neither purchased

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

bogus entity and further went on holding that long term capital gain earned by assessee on sale of shares of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. is merely an accommodation entry and exemption claimed u/s 10(38) was denied (even though assessee has neither purchased

ADITYA BAHETI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus long term capital gain. There is no disputethat once the assessee has claimed the long term capital gain from purchase

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL, HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

Long Term Capital Gains claimed by the assessee in respect of purchase and sale of penny stock were treated as bogus

ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR vs. SMT. SHAKUNTALA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the department is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchase and sale of shares as the appellant has dealt with shares of other companies like Vijaya Bank, Dena Bank, LIC. Hg, PFC, Indus Ind bank etc. Therefore, the addition made towards undisclosed sale transaction of shares by taking accommodation bogus entries in the shape of Long term capital gain/Short term capital gain

VIPUL KUMAR MODI ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Long-Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee appellant as bogus and failed to appreciate that the ld. Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order after appreciating all supporting documents and evidences submitted by the assessee and therefore the assessment order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

long Term Capital gain chargeable to Tax 6239484 Assessee submits with reference to the proposition and show cause notice is the only limitation on his powers is that he must have some material(s) which would enable him to form a prima facie opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital gains\nIncome arising from transfer of long term securities (Penny stock) - Assessment years\n2012-13 and 2013-14 - Assessee purchased shares of a company and earned long-term\ncapital gain(LTCG) on sale of same - He claimed exemption of LTCG under section\n10(38) - Assessing Officer opined that assessee had made huge profit out of said\ninvestment because

KARUNA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 2(1), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

purchase of the shares of these companies is not made by public but by the bogus entities which are referred to as exit providers. So firstly, the unaccounted money of the beneficiaries is routed to the bogus entities normally exit providers and the shares held by the beneficiaries are bought by these bogus entities and thus long-term capital gain

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.\n15,95,000/- and has not disclosed the capital gain earned and income escaped\nassessment. however, when the assessment order was passed it was mentioned that\nthe assessee has invested Rs.15,95,000/- in purchase

MANOHAR LAL CHUGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus long term capital gain. There is no dispute that once the assessee has claimed the long term capital gain from purchase

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

long back on 06.09.2018, the AO of the Searched Person must have sent the seized records relating to the Assessee to the concerned AO of the Assessee within a reasonable period of time. 2.1Pertinently, the seized accounts/ documents were handed over by the DDIT(I) –II, Jaipur vide his letter No. DDIT(Inv.)-II/JPR/2018-19/131 dated 18.03.2019 to the then

PARASMAL BHANDARI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Making The Impugned Addition & Not Providing Any Opportunity Of Cross Examination Which Is In Gross Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice.

long term capital gain. Even otherwise, veracity and back ground of company M/s. Channel Nine Entertainment Ltd. has already been subject matter of scrutinization before the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Amit Rastogi, HUF and another vs ITO Ward 1(1) Meerut in ITA No. 2128 to 5 PARASMAL BHANDARI VS ITO, WARD 6 (2), JAIPUR