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

section 10 (38) of I. T. Act, 1961 regarding capital gain income are submitted herein below : - Section 10 (38): Exempted

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

section 10 (38) of I. T. Act, 1961 regarding capital gain income are submitted herein below : - Section 10 (38): Exempted

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

section 10 (38) of I. T. Act, 1961 regarding capital gain income are submitted herein below : - Section 10 (38): Exempted

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

section 10 (38) of I. T. Act, 1961 regarding capital gain income are submitted herein below : - Section 10 (38): Exempted

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

section 10 (38) of I. T. Act, 1961 regarding capital gain income are submitted herein below : - Section 10 (38): Exempted

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

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain earned during the year i.e. Rs.1,47,42,303  Assessee never utilized the amount for purchase of residential land, for the purpose of claiming benefit under Section 54B.  The same was clarified before NFAC at Page 10-11 and accepted by the NFAC. 3 Out of the total agreed  Assessee paid

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

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

38), read with section 153C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income arising from transfer of securities 'Burden of proof] - Assessment year 2008- 09 - Assessee.-HT IF derived long-term capital gain from sale of shares of two companies and such capital gains was claimed as exempt under section 10

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAVINDRA MITTAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 823/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 D.C.I.T., Cuke Shri Ravindra Mittal, Vs. Circle-6, 804, Akshat Niley Apartment, Jaipur. Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aexpm 9057 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

10 ITA 823/JP/2019 & CO 29/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs Ravindra Mittal short term capital gain in respect of construction after allowing deduction for cost as held above. The Assessing Officer is directed to adopt floorwise valuation according to stamp/revenue authorities to work out cost for computing long term capital gain and short term capital gain.” 8. From perusal of the impugned order

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

38,100/2] towards payment of cash as 'on\nmoney' for which the assessee did not offer any explanation. (ii) Addition on account\nof payment of Rs.1,20,10,610/- (allegedly through cheque) but not found\nsubstantiated.\n5.6.2 Direction 2: The AO is hereby directed that addition in respect to payment by\ncash can only be added

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

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

38). Shares of many companies which had practically no asset, business and profit were systematically manipulated by unscrupulous brokers in connivance with operators and willing beneficiaries. The company whose shares were bought and sold by appellant was found out to be one of the penny stock entities whose share price was manipulated. The modus operandi had been dealt with

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

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

Section 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

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

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) The assessee,— (i) owns64 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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

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

HARISH SHARMA HUF,B-1, PATODIYA MARG, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gain shown by the assessee is not genuine and it is managed with the papers. The assessee claimed as exempt this gain under section 10(38