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.

26,73,955/- 76,73,955/- (on the payment of Rs. 28 Lacs) F Capital Gain liable for Tax 66,41,252/- 6. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that Assessee has failed to deposit the unused amount in the CGAS. Appellant is making submissions on the various grounds raised before

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

KIRAN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 50C to his notice. Further in the show cause notice proposed computation of capital gain was given. The assessee has requested for personal hearing on VC. However in the show cause notice it was clearly mentioned asunder: If required, after filing written reply you may request for personal hearing so as to make oral submissions or present your case

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

10. Now we refer to the provisions of section 45(3) of the Act which have been specifically brought on the statue book to bring to tax these type of transactions where a partner brings in his capital asset and contribute the same as his share in the capital of the partnership firm. The sub-section (3) to section

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. JYOTI FALOR, JAIPUR

26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section 132(4) and, therefore, it was surrendered and offered to tax by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members in the year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BITTHAL DAS PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section 132(4) and, therefore, it was surrendered and offered to tax by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members in the year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section 132(4) and, therefore, it was surrendered and offered to tax by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members in the year

DCIT, C.C. -03, JAIPUR vs. SHRI TEJENDER KUMAR FALOR, JAIPUR

26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section 132(4) and, therefore, it was surrendered and offered to tax by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members in the year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ PARWAL, JAIPUR

26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section 132(4) and, therefore, it was surrendered and offered to tax by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members in the year

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

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

section 45(2). Therefore, FMV of the asset on the date of conversion as reduced by the indexed cost of acquisition and cost of improvement will be assessed under the head capital gain and excess over such FMV can only be brought to tax as business income. 3. The ld DR has vehemently argued the matter and relied upon

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

10% of the receipt, he computed the 19 Shri Mahaveer Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5) Alwar income from business at Rs.48,98,790/-. It is submitted that assessee never intended to enter into any real estate business/adventure. He has inherited the ancestral land and to have a better realisation of the capital asset, the same is sold after

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

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

26 were not provided. therefore this incomplete statement cannot be read against the assessee in quasi-judicial proceedings not suppose to reply by the assessee. (ii). That the statement of Shri AnujAgarwal was recorded in what capacity during survey operation of office premises of korp securities Ltd and other companies situated at martio business house, Kolkata 01 is not mentioned

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the IT Act by treating the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares as unexplained cash credit. The addition of Rs. 1,51,869/- being the deemed commission for taking the accommodation entry, is consequential to the main issue. Hence, the same is also not sustainable.” We are of the view that the present appeal does

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI GAURAV BAGARIA, JAIPUR

section 10(38) of the IT Act. Though the assessee has purported to have received the sale consideration on sale of shares, however, in reality it was his own cash which he received back through some clandestine deals. The AO has referred to the report of the SIT as well as the statement of Shri Sunil Dokania recorded

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

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

26,600 equity shares of M/s. TFCIL in physical form. The assessee had paid total consideration of Rs. 2.8 Lacs in respect of shares and later on these shares were sold for Rs. 86,05,364/-, i.e. Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs. 83,25,364/-. The assessee further, purchased the shares on 11.03.2012 amounting