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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice as held in CCE Vs Andaman Timber Industries 127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase

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

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 capital gains. 24. The investigation has revealed that a systematic evasion of tax was involved. In this case, the contract notes are fabricated and the chain proves that the shares transferred 4 Sumit Goel vs. ITO were purchased

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

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

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

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

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

bogus. The Assessing Officer accepted the purchases as genuine but added certain amount on the premise that the assessee's profit from such dealings would have been higher than disclosed. The entire issue was at large before the Appellate Commissioner. It is well known that the Commissioner (Appeals) while hearing the 7 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus Long\nTerm Capital Gain of Rs.15,95,000/- and has not disclosed the capital gain earned\nand income escaped assessment. Whereas, the assessment order was passed taking\ninto account that the assessee has invested Rs.15,95,000/- in purchase

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

capital gains earned on said sale but\nassessee had purchased property and not sold property, since AO missed most\ncrucial part of transaction that it was a purchase and not a sale transaction and\nimpugned order under section 148A(b) did not align with notice issued under\nsection 148A(b), impugned order and consequential notice were to be set aside

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

purchase consideration as claimed and evident from the bank account then, in the absence of any evidence it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long/short term capital gain

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

bogus capital gains obtained from transactions of purchase and sale of shares, it can be good reason to treat transactions

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

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

gain of Rs. 82,28,577/- in purchase of new residential flat from M/s Nyati Builders purchase of furniture, house hold 12 Sajjad Ali vs DCIT (intl.), Jaipur items, Interior and brokerage etc., however, it is seen that plain reading of provisions of section 2(14) states that furniture and house hold expenses are not part of capital assets, thus

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)

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. 3 2.1. That