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)

short period does not mean that the transaction is “bogus” if the documentation and evidences cannot be faulted. Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) (Caselaws PB Pages 85-93) Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: Long Term capital gains claimed exempt u/s 10(38) cannot be treated as bogus unexplained income if the paper work is in order

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

short period does not mean that the transaction is “bogus” if the documentation and evidences cannot be faulted. Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) (Caselaws Paper Book Pages 85-93) SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL VS ACIT, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: Long Term capital gains claimed exempt u/s 10(38) cannot be treated

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)

term capital gain in the case of the assessee and he made further inquiry (in the case of the assessee no enquiries were made) that during the year assessee had purchased 45,000 shares of M/s Ankur International Ltd. at varying rates from Rs. 2.06 to Rs. 3.10 per share and sold them within a short span of six-seven

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

Term Capital Gain of Rs. 83,25,364/-. The assessee further, purchased the shares on 11.03.2012 amounting to Rs. 48,90,900/- (15,000 equity shares) and sold the same at Rs. 48,87,600/-, i.e. incurred a short capital loss of Rs. 3,300/- Ultimately, the assessee shown income under the head capital gain amounting

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

term capital gain in the case of the assessee and he\nmade further inquiry (in the case of the assessee no enquiries were made) that\nduring the year assessee had purchased 45,000 shares of M/s Ankur\nInternational Ltd. at varying rates from Rs. 2.06 to Rs. 3.10 per share and sold\nthem within a short span of six-seven

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

term capital gain of Rs. 11,75,100/- resulting into a net gain of Rs. 16,034/-.\nOn going through the nature of transactions, the AO doubted the genuineness of the short-\nterm capital gain in the case of the assessee and he made further inquiry (in the case of the\nassessee no enquiries were made) that during the year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus profit. The finding of the investigation wing is that –\nThe report speaks about as many as 84 penny stock companies whose shares were manipulated or exploited to book either long term capital gain which is exempt from tax or short term capital loss for set off with other nature of income so as to reduce the tax liability.\nThe

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)

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 opportunity

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)

bogus long term capital/short term capital gain/loss were provided to the various beneficiaries which entered into the sale transaction of shares of M/s. VMS Industries Ltd. It is also noted that the AO had considered documents/ reply filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and on perusal of the details/ITR noticed that short term capital gain

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

Term Capital Gain under section 68 of the IT Act as undisclosed cash credit as well as an 4 ITA 223 & 222/JP/2020_ Nilesh Agarwal HUF, Jaipur Vs ITO, Jaipur addition of Rs. 47,413/- being commission paid for acquiring such accommodation entry. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) and referred to the documentary

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchase amount, and secondly, the appellant incurred short term capital loss, and did\nnot earn long term capital gains. In the present case, reopening under section 147 has been done\nwithout linking information received from Investigation Wing of Department to actual facts in\nthe appellant's case.\n\n2. Legal position in this regard-\n\n2.1 In this regard, provisions

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. Therefore, the meresuspicioncannotbeagroundfortreatingthetransactionasbogusintheabsenceofanyevi denceormaterialonrecordbytheAO.Inthecaseinhand the assessee produced all the relevant documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the transaction. Even if the AO doubted the transaction, then toestablishthatthetransactionisbogus,theAOisrequiredtoproducethecontrary material evidence so that the evidence produced by the assessee can be controverted. In the absence of such contrary material or evidence brought onrecordbytheAOandtheevidenceproducedbytheassesseeisotherwiseindependently verifiable being

RAHUL KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus short term capital loss. From perusal of record, I find that the assessee being a trader, buys and sells stocks or other securities frequently with the intention of making a profit through short-term price movement. His income from trading is treated as business income and he filed his return of income under the head “Profits and gains from

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

short-term capital loss - Further, there was nothing to show\nthat information produced above was applicable to assessee Materials based on\nwhich said report was prepared had also not been placed on record by revenue\nConclusion arrived at by Assessing Officer was based on suspicion created by\ninformation that shares of IISL and SRK were penny stocks - Whether, on facts

SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

purchased 50,000 shares of the Surabhi Chemicals and investment Lid Abr Rs.1,00,000 on 16.03.2012 and 14.08.2012 Soon after the expiry of the period to become eligible for long term capital gains, the assessee sold those shares for Rs. 29.23 500 shares were effected during the period from 04.12.2013 to 07.12.2013 and the long term capital gains

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

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Short Term Capital Gains shall not be calculated on the entire consideration of Rs. 1,00,33,670/- and added back to the total income. On perusal of your bank a/c 18890100006023 of Bank of Baroda, it is observed that you have received an interest of Rs. 2,00,000/- which has not been offered in the total income

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

short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and 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