ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

purchased and accordingly the capital gain on sale of shares sold during the year under consideration is exempt from tax under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in ITR. 5.4. It is further submitted that when there is no allegation by Ld. A.O. that assessee ever approached any broker or entry operator for any bogus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BITTHAL DAS PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

purchased and accordingly the capital gain on sale of shares sold during the year under consideration is exempt from tax under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in ITR. 5.4. It is further submitted that when there is no allegation by Ld. A.O. that assessee ever approached any broker or entry operator for any bogus

DCIT, C.C. -03, JAIPUR vs. SHRI TEJENDER KUMAR FALOR, JAIPUR

purchased and accordingly the capital gain on sale of shares sold during the year under consideration is exempt from tax under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in ITR. 5.4. It is further submitted that when there is no allegation by Ld. A.O. that assessee ever approached any broker or entry operator for any bogus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases = Rs. 22,21,78,361 * 15%). Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 30,13,471 (Total purchases = Rs.60,26,94,181* 0.5%) 2. Submission 2.1. The assessee for the year under consideration was liable to get his accounts audited as per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The tax auditor

SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases = Rs. 22,21,78,361 * 15%). Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 30,13,471 (Total purchases = Rs.60,26,94,181* 0.5%) 2. Submission 2.1. The assessee for the year under consideration was liable to get his accounts audited as per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The tax auditor

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 in view of the following: 1. The assessee had purchased 12500 shares at the rate of Rs. 15/- per share ii. In consideration of purchase of shares, payment was made through account payee cheque, which stood debited in the bank statement of the assessee. Copy of documents evidencing purchase as well as payment of shares was submitted before lower

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

10,586/ to cover any possible leakage of revenue on account of bogus purchases which works out to Rs. 6,31,74,635/-. Since the appellant has already declared Rs. 5,16,97,909/- as the GP for the year under consideration, therefore addition to the extent of Rs. 1,14,76,726/- is sustained and the appellant gets

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI GAURAV BAGARIA, JAIPUR

10(38), read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income arising from transfer of long-term securities (Bogus transactions) - Assessment year 200607 - Assessee 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 in view of the following:- i. The assessee had purchased 12500 shares at the rate of Rs. 15/- per shares ii. In consideration of purchase of shares, payment was made through account payee cheque, which stood debited in the bank statement of the assessee. Copy of documents evidencing purchase as well as payment of shares was submitted before lower

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

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

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

HARISH SHARMA HUF,B-1, PATODIYA MARG, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus long term capital gains. Accordingly, a show cause letter dt. 09.11.21016 (reproduced at pages 4-5 of the assessment order) was issued to the assessee to justify the LTCG claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) as the offline purchase of share were made by the assessee from this company. In response to same assessee filed his reply

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

NARESH KUMAR ARORA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus long term capital gain. There is no dispute that once the assessee has claimed the long term capital gain from purchase and sale of shares which is exempt under section 10(38

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