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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

purchase and sale of shares and consequential Long Term Capital Gain cannot be treated as 43 ITA169/JP/2022 DCIT, CENTRALL CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR VS SHRI VIGYAN LODHA bogus

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

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (v) Any other information received by the AO from any government agency or any other organization gersoll response to enquiries conducted u/s 131/ 133(6) or otherwise, which shows that the appellant had received accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain by making cash payment to the person or his agent/ associate

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (v) Any other information received by the AO from any government agency or any other organization gersoll response to enquiries conducted u/s 131/ 133(6) or otherwise, which shows that the appellant had received accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain by making cash payment to the person or his agent/ associate

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (v) Any other information received by the AO from any government agency or any other organization gersoll response to enquiries conducted u/s 131/ 133(6) or otherwise, which shows that the appellant had received accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain by making cash payment to the person or his agent/ associate

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (v) Any other information received by the AO from any government agency or any other organization gersoll response to enquiries conducted u/s 131/ 133(6) or otherwise, which shows that the appellant had received accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain by making cash payment to the person or his agent/ associate

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (v) Any other information received by the AO from any government agency or any other organization gersoll response to enquiries conducted u/s 131/ 133(6) or otherwise, which shows that the appellant had received accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain by making cash payment to the person or his agent/ associate

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (v) Any other information received by the AO from any government agency or any other organization gersoll response to enquiries conducted u/s 131/ 133(6) or otherwise, which shows that the appellant had received accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain by making cash payment to the person or his agent/ associate

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (v) Any other information received by the AO from any government agency or any other organization gersoll response to enquiries conducted u/s 131/ 133(6) or otherwise, which shows that the appellant had received accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain by making cash payment to the person or his agent/ associate

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (v) Any other information received by the AO from any government agency or any other organization gersoll response to enquiries conducted u/s 131/ 133(6) or otherwise, which shows that the appellant had received accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain by making cash payment to the person or his agent/ associate

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (v) Any other information received by the AO from any government agency or any other organization gersoll response to enquiries conducted u/s 131/ 133(6) or otherwise, which shows that the appellant had received accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain by making cash payment to the person or his agent/ associate

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