KANTA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 from bogus scrip transactions during the year as under :- Name of Sale price Purchase

KANTA AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 from bogus scrip transactions during the year as under :- Name of Sale price Purchase

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

section 10(38),\nsince said transactions of sale and purchase of\nshares were admitted by assessee and it had\nnot brought on record anything to suggest that\nreassessment proceedings were being\nundertaken in arbitrary manner, impugned\nreopening notice was justified.\n21 [2019] 101 taxmann.com\n231\n(Madhya Pradesh) HIGH COURT\nOF MADHYA PRADESH\nEtiam EmediaLtd.v. Income-tax\nOfficer

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

bogus LTCG. Therefore, the same is assessed in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act. 5.3.3 In respect of this ground, the appellant in his written submission made the following argument: 59. As stated in brief facts of the case that the Appellant purchased total

SHRI RUPAL JAIAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

section 10(38) of the Act and the relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench contained at Para 8 read as under:- "8. The assessee has earned speculation profit in the immediately preceding year through M/s Eden Financial Services also and the said profit has been used to purchase the shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. The assessee has offered

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchase. Thus, the allegation of\nthe revenue is general without considering the facts of the case on hand.\nEven the shares that the assessee received were remain available for more\nthan 12 months in the demant account itself and that is sufficient proof to\navail the benefit as available as per provision of section 10(38

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus. Banking channel payments alone cannot establish genuineness when the counter-parties are non-existent. The assessee failed on all three tests under Section 68 — identity, genuineness, creditworthiness. Cash Sales During Demonetization Not Proved The assessee claimed that deposits of ₹44,61,000 represented cash sales. However, the AO and CIT(A) recorded that: There was a 561% rise

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

bogus purchases is wrong and unjustified. The appellant has enclosed copies of its Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account for the year under consideration for your kind verification (APB 38-39). Ground No. 2 : That the ld. CIT (A) has erred seriously in law and on facts in sustaining the validity of notice issued

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 dispute that once the assessee has claimed the long termcapital gain from purchase and sale of shares which is exempt under section 10(38

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchased online and are\nduly appearing in the D-mat statement of the assessee and after holding the same for a\nperiod of more than one year, the profit on sale of same after payment of STT (APB\n06-13) was claimed as LTCG by the assessee which is in accordance with the\nprovisions of section 10(38

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

10(38) need to be\nproved by contract notes for sale apart from other ingredients like authentic\nsupporting documents like bank statements and sales through stock exchange\nplatform, and the same have been proved by the assessee.\n1.4 The case of the assessee is supported by the purchase bill, payment by cheque\nand sale by assessee on recognized stock exchange

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

10(38) need to be proved by contract notes for sale apart from other\ningredients like authentic supporting documents like bank statements and sales through stock\nexchange platform, and the same have been proved by the assessee.\n1.4 The case of the assessee is supported by the purchase bill, payment by cheque and sale by\nassessee on recognized stock exchange

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby enclosing working and contract note for your reference. 2. you are not right in taking the Turnover for Rs. 1, 34, 92,964/-, however out of it Rs. 86, 05,364/- a LTCG turnover. Its profit is Rs. 83, 25,364/- (Rs. 86, 05,364/-minus Rs. 2, 80,000/-). Rest

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)

10(38) Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stock: The fact that there was an astounding 4849.2% jump in the share price within two years, which is not supported by the financials, does not justify the AO's conclusion that the assessee converted unaccounted money into fictitious exempt LTCG to evade taxes. The finding is unsupported by material on record

TARA SONI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders\nas to cost

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability\nof (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed\nCommissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party\ninformation gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been\nindependently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not\nprovided copy

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)

10(38)—AO observed that companies, whose shares were allegedly dealt with, were not very well known and it was entirely unlikely that there was a huge rise in prices of their shares in a very short span of time—AO treated huge rise in price as manipulation by stock broker and made additions in income of assessee towards transactions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchases and sales of shares routed 28 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT through the recognized stock exchange and the funds have been transacted through banking channels and the shares were kept by the assessee in D-mat account maintained by independent third party and the sales were subject to STT. Thus, all the conditions enumerated in section 10(38

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

38 15. 17.10.2017 SVMS/2017-18/GST/1212 6,22,349 773 T20171000226274 39 to 42 Also weight slip 16. 23.10.2017 SVMS/2017-18/GST/1294 6,56,906 860 - 43 and 44 17. 26.10.2017 SVMS/2017-18/GST/1337 6,67,060 952 T20171000305405 47 to 48 Also weight slip Total purchases including GST @ 18% 1,05,06.669* * Purchase price without GST is Rs.89,03,956/- i.e. 105,06,669X100