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

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in ITR. 5.4. It is further submitted that when there is no allegation by Ld. A.O. that assessee ever approached any broker or entry operator for any bogus entry for long term capital gain or he has provided any entry to the assessee then, the Ld. A.O. is not justified

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

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in ITR. 5.4. It is further submitted that when there is no allegation by Ld. A.O. that assessee ever approached any broker or entry operator for any bogus entry for long term capital gain or he has provided any entry to the assessee then, the Ld. A.O. is not justified

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

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in ITR. 5.4. It is further submitted that when there is no allegation by Ld. A.O. that assessee ever approached any broker or entry operator for any bogus entry for long term capital gain or he has provided any entry to the assessee then, the Ld. A.O. is not justified

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

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in ITR. 5.4. It is further submitted that when there is no allegation by Ld. A.O. that assessee ever approached any broker or entry operator for any bogus entry for long term capital gain or he has provided any entry to the assessee then, the Ld. A.O. is not justified

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

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in ITR. 5.4. It is further submitted that when there is no allegation by Ld. A.O. that assessee ever approached any broker or entry operator for any bogus entry for long term capital gain or he has provided any entry to the assessee then, the Ld. A.O. is not justified

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

Capital Gain & (3) Availability of section 54 to the assessee subject to our final decision on the issue of entitlement of section 54 of the Act. 6. During the course of hearing, ld. counsel of the assessee filed a Paper Book (PB) and in support of his contentions filed following Rulings of Jurisdictional Bench of ITAT as well as other

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

capital loss was a preconceived design to avoid tax liability on the capital gain arising from sale of shares as well as other income. The assessee instead of transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

capital loss was a preconceived design to avoid tax liability on the capital gain arising from sale of shares as well as other income. The assessee instead of transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of 9 DCIT Vs Shri Vasudev Agarwal Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI AJAY AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9 DCIT Vs Ajay Agarwal The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of 9 DCIT Vs Indira Agarwal Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

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

Capital Gains, eligible to tax, in the hands of the assessee. 3.3. Even ld. AO, in his remand report, submitted to the ld. CIT(A) accepted the fact that the property was never transferred to the assessee. In this regard, the remand report of the ld. AO, reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) at Page 5-6 of his order

ITO, WARD-1, BHARATPUR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

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

Capital Gains, eligible to tax, in the hands of the assessee. 3.3. Even ld. AO, in his remand report, submitted to the ld. CIT(A) accepted the fact that the property was never transferred to the assessee. In this regard, the remand report of the ld. AO, reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) at Page 5-6 of his order

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain and computation of exemption have to be worked out on the basis of substituted sale consideration in terms of section 50C as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jagdish C. Dhabalia [104

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

104]. 6. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Ganpat Ram Vishnoi- 296 ITR 292 (Raj) [CLC 105-108]wherein it was held that jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely

SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

Section. It is not in dispute that the assessee had traded in penny stock scrip viz Comfort Intech Ltd. and obtained accommodation entry in the form of Short Term Capital Gain. Even if assuming the said company M/s. Comfort Intech Ltd is not treated as penny stock company then the assessee who had earned short term capital gain of Rs.10.05

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory