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)) would be subject to\ntaxation.\n7. Conclusion and Prayer\nFor the reasons stated above, it is respectfully submitted that:\ni.\nThe company, as a penny stock, lacks inherent worth due to its negligible asset\nbase and poor financial performance.\nii.\nThe assessee'sprofitability logic is unsubstantiated and speculative, failing to\ndemonstrate any sustainable future returns.\niii.\nThe

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

section 54F of the same amount Net Income from Long Term Capital Gain declared by the assessee was NIL. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee observed some mistake in the computation of LTCG income and therefore filed a revised computation of income along with covering letter dated 28.12.2015 declaring sale consideration of plot

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

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

gains was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. These shares were purchased by the assessee after making payment through payees account cheque which stood debited in the bank account of the assessee (APB – 35). These shares stood sold via transaction executed through Bombay stock exchange after payment of STT (Securities Transaction Tax) and other incidental charges. However

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)

capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee’s theory of ‘shifting of land’ is nowhere described nor application in case in view of the facts as narrated above. 2. The compensation received on A plain reading of section 10(37

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)

capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee’s theory of ‘shifting of land’ is nowhere described nor application in case in view of the facts as narrated above. 2. The compensation received on A plain reading of section 10(37

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)

capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee’s theory of ‘shifting of land’ is nowhere described nor application in case in view of the facts as narrated above. 2. The compensation received on A plain reading of section 10(37

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)

capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee’s theory of ‘shifting of land’ is nowhere described nor application in case in view of the facts as narrated above. 2. The compensation received on A plain reading of section 10(37

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

10(38)) o Short-Term Capital Loss (STCL): " Sale: Rs. 48,87,600/- " Purchase: Rs. 48,90,900/- " Loss: Rs. 3,300/- Thus, the net capital gain should be Rs. 83, 22,064/-. Additionally, relying on statements regarding accommodation entries from unrelated persons is inappropriate. The AO's failure to distinguish between LTCG and STCL has led to an unjustified

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 on sale of assets. Section 48 of the income tax Act defines the index as what is notified by the Central Government every year, having regard to 75 per cent or average rise in the consumer price index (CPI) for urban non-manual employees for the immediately preceding previous year. (iii) we consider that price of a capital asset

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)

37,172/- made by ld.AO u/s 68 of the Act by treating genuine Long Term Capital Gain earned by assessee as mere accommodation entry and bogus and thereby withdrawing exemption u/s 10(38); and making further addition of Rs.18,743/- u/s 69C holding it to be commission paid for getting accommodation entries. As all the grounds of appeal are interrelated

SH. KESAR LAL BAIRWA,A-24, VARUN COLONY, MANDARA STAND, NEW SANGANER ROAD, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

gains". The fact that there is no amendment carried out under Section 10(37) of the 1961 Act will not change the position. Section 10 deals with deductions and sub- section (37) thereof deals with capital

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

capital gains year in which assessable – assessment year 1999- 2000 whether even in cases where pending appeal court /tribunal/ authority, before which appeal is pending permits claimant to withdraw against security or otherwise enhanced compensation (which is in dispute) same is liable to be taxed under section 45(5) in year of receipt- Held, yes - Whether additional amount under section

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

10 shares of M/s Bakra\nPratishthan Ltd. against 1 share of M/s Dhanlabh Merchandise Ltd. Then the prices of\nshares were rigged up from Rs. 20 per share to Rs.353.32 per share i.e. up to 1600%\non which the shares were sold and Long Term Capital Gain was generated. This\nmakes it clear that there was an adjustment made

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

10 shares of M/s Bakra Pratishthan Ltd. against 1\nshare of M/s Dhanlabh Merchandise Ltd. Then the prices of shares were\nrigged up from Rs. 20 per share to Rs.353.32 per share i.e. up to 1600%\non which the shares were sold and Long Term Capital Gain was\ngenerated. This makes it clear that there was an adjustment made

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital gains\nIncome arising from transfer of long term securities (Penny stock) - Assessment years\n2012-13 and 2013-14 - Assessee purchased shares of a company and earned long-term\ncapital gain(LTCG) on sale of same - He claimed exemption of LTCG under section\n10(38) - Assessing Officer opined that assessee had made huge profit out of said\ninvestment because

TEJ PAL SINGH,REENGUS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NEEM KA THANA, NEEM KA THANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Me That The Capital Gain Earned On This Land Acquired By Nhai Was Exempt In Terms Of Provision Section 10 Sub-Section (37) Of The Act. He Drew My Attention To The Relevant Provision Of Section 10(37) Of The Act As Under:-

capital gain earned on this land acquired by NHAI was exempt in terms of provision Section 10 sub-Section (37

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

10,962/ made u/s 14A of the Act in para 5(i) covers disallowance required to be made u/s 36(1)(iii). l) Accordingly, disallowance of Rs. 29,36,97,412/- (21,07,21,984 + 8,29,75,428) is made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds