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

section 10(38) of the Act.\nWe are afraid if such a way, we take a view that the gain arrived by a valid\nprocess be considered as bogus gain and unexplained then the mess will\nbe created no corporate entity will get the capital and the purpose of capital\nmarket will vanish. The contention of the revenue that

SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

23,696/- u/s 68 and Rs. 1,45,421/- u/s 69C of the Act respectively. 2.4 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee and the relevant observation of the ld. CIT(A) is mentioned as under:- ‘’6.3. I have carefully considered the matter. From a reading

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

10 to 13). The assessment was completed under section 143(3) by the DCIT, Circle 7, Jaipur on 24/2/2016 and the returned income was accepted. (Copy of order at Paper book page no 14.) Thereafter, the assessee received one notice under section 148 dated 18/7/2017. (Copy at Paper book page no 15). In reply to this notice

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

10 taxmann.com 57 (Mumbai)[09-02-2011] Hon’ble Tribunal held: “In the instant case, admittedly the period of 6 months for making investment in long term specified asset was 9-2-2006. As on that date the said cheque had been delivered to NABARD. Therefore, the date of payment of the cheque would be the date of delivery

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)

10(38) Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stock: The fact that there was an astounding 4849.2% jump in the share price within two years, which is not supported by the financials, does not justify the AO's conclusion that the assessee converted unaccounted money into fictitious exempt LTCG to evade taxes. The finding is unsupported by material on record

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

gains were not\ntreated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\nof ‘return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period, nor places any\nembargo as regards

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

gains were not\ntreated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\nof ‘return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period, nor places any\nembargo as regards

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

section 10(38). Further, ld.AO had referred some order of SEBI having no direct reference of the assessee. During eh course of assessment proceeding, opportunity for cross examination of the witnesses of the department i.e. the above named two SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL VS ACIT, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR persons whose statements were solely relied upon to conclude that the assessee

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

capital gain earned towards consideration of new residential house within extended period u/s 139(4) of the Act, the claim made by assessee for exemption u/s 54F of the Act could not be denied. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Jaipur in the case of ACIT Vs. Maya Devi Sharma in ITA No. 71/JP/15 dated 25.07.2017 (relevant Para

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)

gains, assessee claimed cost of acquisition being fair market value as on 1-4- 1981 Assessing Officer held that there was no cost incurred for purchase/acquisition of tenancy rights and accordingly took cost of acquisition at nil Whether case of assessee fell under section 49(1)(iii)(a) and once capital asset in question became property of assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains on shares in terms of Section 10(38) of the Act. During the course of scrutiny assessment, a revised return was filed by the Assessee claiming the above exemption. After the AO rejected the plea, the Assessee went before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was satisfied that the purchase of liquid shares have been made through Account

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)

10(38) Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stock: The fact that there was an astounding 4849.2% jump in the share price within two years, which is not supported by the financials, does not justify the AO's conclusion that the assessee converted unaccounted money into fictitious exempt LTCG to evade taxes. The finding is unsupported by material on record

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

section 10(38) of the Act. Various courts have held the above view. The addition has been made without bringing on record assessee’s involvement in earning the capital gains by the active collusion in the process of manipulating prices of companies in stock market. In view of the above, the addition of Rs.29,89,956/- as presumed commission payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

10(37) is not applicable in this case. Further, AR of the assessee company has taken a plea that 15 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. the compensation received is exempt in accordance with the RFCTLAAR Act, is also not acceptable. In the case under reference land

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

10(37) is not applicable in this case. Further, AR of the assessee company has taken a plea that 15 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. the compensation received is exempt in accordance with the RFCTLAAR Act, is also not acceptable. In the case under reference land

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

10(37) is not applicable in this case. Further, AR of the assessee company has taken a plea that 15 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. the compensation received is exempt in accordance with the RFCTLAAR Act, is also not acceptable. In the case under reference land

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

10(37) is not applicable in this case. Further, AR of the assessee company has taken a plea that 15 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. the compensation received is exempt in accordance with the RFCTLAAR Act, is also not acceptable. In the case under reference land

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

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with