SHARAD KUMAR BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 153C of the Act,\nnotices was issued for A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 on 27.03.2023 by\nld. AO which was duly served upon the assessee through e-filing portal.\nReturn of income has been filed by the assessee in response to the notice\nu/s 153C of the Act on 26.04.2023. No additional income was declared in\nthe return

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

gain of ₹27,87,561/-was added to the assessee's\nincome from other sources and taxed at 30% under Section 115BBE.\nii.\niii. Additionally, it was determined that an 6% commission (₹1,85,530/-\ncalculated at a reasonable 6% rate on the sale) is to be treated as\nundisclosed expenditure under Section 69C.\niv. Separate penalty proceedings under Section

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

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

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

10(38) by appellant is dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of Long Term Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30

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

10(38) by appellant is dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of Long Term Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30

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

10(38) by appellant is dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of Long Term Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30

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

10(38) by appellant is dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of Long Term Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30

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

10(38) by appellant is dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of Long Term Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30

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

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

10% of every year for the purposes of arriving at value in the year 1984.” 24. In this regard, reference can also be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Essorpe Holdings (P) Ltd [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 280 (Mad) wherein it was held as under: “21. A part of the land

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

30,04,864/- earned from sale of these shares was declared in the return of income and as shares were of listed public limited company, sold through recognized stock exchange after holding for a period of more than one year and due STT [Securities Transaction Tax] was paid, long term capital gain was claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of Income

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

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

section 68 or not. In the case of NR Portfolio, it was held that the genuineness and credibility are deeper and obtrusive. Similarly, the bank statements provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble court in the case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt Ltd, wherein

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 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10(38)/68: Long Term capital gains on sale of “penny” stocks cannot be treated as bogus & unexplained cash credit if the documentation is in order & there is no allegation of manipulation by SEBI or the BSE. Denial of right of cross- examination is fatal flaw which renders the assessment order a nullity. Dolarrai Hemani vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Penny