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)

capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice

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

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

capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice

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)

Capital Gains (LTCG) for exemption u/s 10(38) when transfer occurs through banking channels, stock exchanges and there was violation of natural justice

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

Capital Gain Exemption under Section 10(38) The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT (A) wrongly denied the LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) by presuming the share transactions were non-genuine without concrete evidence. The transactions were properly executed, as shown by contract notes, Demat statements, bank transactions, and STT compliance. Courts have consistently ruled that in the absence

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gain could not be set off from business loss as assessee has filed the return after due date prescribed under the Income Tax Act. 5) That the Commissioner Appeals has grossly erred in holding and sustaining the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has shown business loss of 10,59,845/- in its computation of total income

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gain for the year under \nconsideration. The incriminating material found/seized in the search and \nseizure action in \"Gokul Kripa Group\" was in the form of diaries/ registers \nincluding digital record wherein transactions executed by the key persons \nof the company GKCDPL, is written/mentioned. Ld. AO thereby noted that; \n\na) These digital record have project wise excel sheets wherein

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) for exemption u/s 10(38) when transfer occurs\nthrough banking channels, stock exchanges and there was violation of natural\njustice. In this judgement, the Hon'ble Court has upheld the judgement of Orissa\nHigh Court. The Court has reaffirmed the importance of adhering to principles of\nnatural justice

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Natural Justice: Only 1 day given to respond to enhancement\nnotice; DRP ignored detailed replies and adjournment requests.\n6. DRP Overreach: Directed addition of cheque payments without any\nincriminating material-exceeds scope of 153C.\n7. Source of Investment Explained: Payment from Capital Gains

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

natural \njustice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of \nthe case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the \nsubject matter to be dealt with and so forth. Can the Courts supplement the \nstatutory procedures with requirements over and above those specified? In order \nto ensure a fair hearing, Courts

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) for exemption u/s 10(38) when transfer occurs\nthrough banking channels, stock exchanges and there was violation of natural\njustice. In this judgement, the Hon'ble Court has upheld the judgement of Orissa\nHigh Court. The Court has reaffirmed the importance of adhering to principles of\nnatural justice

LAL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(2), JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital gains”(copy of assessment order dated Oct 2016 is enclosed) Complete documents relating to the property sold and investment made u/s 54F were duly filed, which were duly examined and after due verification the returned income was duly accepted. Further again, after a lapse of four years, notice u/s 148 has been reissued to re- examine the LTCG offered

RAM SHARAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

nature, is\npurely on estimate basis, without bringing on record any cogent and corroborative\nmaterial.\nTherefore, in view of above,the said disallowance of business loss of Rs. 4,29,946 and treating\nthe same as STCG, deserves to be deleted.\nGROUND NO. 4(a)& 4(b):\nADDITION OF RS. 7,59,696 AS SHORT TERM\nCAPITAL GAIN BY INVOKING

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gains under this anti-avoidance provision. In our humble understanding, it is a case of a curative amendment to take care of unintended consequences of the scheme of Section 50C. It makes perfect sense, and truly reflects a very pragmatic approach full of compassion and fairness, that just because there is a small variation between the stated sale consideration

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gains under this anti-avoidance provision. In our humble understanding, it is a case of a curative amendment to take care of unintended consequences of the scheme of Section 50C. It makes perfect sense, and truly reflects a very pragmatic approach full of compassion and fairness, that just because there is a small variation between the stated sale consideration

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)

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 of cross examination of the statement which has been used against the assessee. The following

RAM SHRAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

nature, is\npurely on estimate basis, without bringing on record any cogent and corroborative\nmaterial.\nTherefore, in view of above,the said disallowance of business loss of Rs. 4,29,946 and treating\nthe same as STCG, deserves to be deleted.\nGROUND NO. 4(a)& 4(b):\nADDITION OF RS. 7,59,696 AS SHORT TERM\nCAPITAL GAIN BY INVOKING

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Capital Gain resulting from these transactions was Rs.1,79,297/- only (as calculated in table above). The AO taxed the whole sales consideration which is against natural justice