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

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

capital gain which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilized by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under Section

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

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

131 of the Act and thus Investigation Wing unearthed LTCG/STCG/STCL/Loss entry of over Rs.38,000 Crores. Thus the Investigation finally identified 84 of such penny stock companies which were involved in the pool of entry providers’ syndicate wherein M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited is found to be one of such penny stock companies. In view of the above information and credible

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)

capital gains: Section 131 statement implicating the assessee is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee when

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)

131 & 133(6) to verify the genuineness of the claim and cannot proceed on surmises.” CIT vs Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (Bombay High Court) (Caselaws PB Pages 17-28) S.10(38)/69: Fact that a small amount invested in “penny” stocks gave rise to huge capital gains in a short period does not mean that the transaction is “bogus

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

capital gain as his undisclosed income for current year from real estate transactions used in obtaining said LTCG exempt under section 10(38) and surrendered the same for tax stating the same is made voluntarily to buy peace of mind. The said averment was again reaffirmed by Shri Bitthal Das Parwal in proceedings under section 131

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

capital gain as his undisclosed income for current year from real estate transactions used in obtaining said LTCG exempt under section 10(38) and surrendered the same for tax stating the same is made voluntarily to buy peace of mind. The said averment was again reaffirmed by Shri Bitthal Das Parwal in proceedings under section 131

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

capital gain as his undisclosed income for current year from real estate transactions used in obtaining said LTCG exempt under section 10(38) and surrendered the same for tax stating the same is made voluntarily to buy peace of mind. The said averment was again reaffirmed by Shri Bitthal Das Parwal in proceedings under section 131

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

capital gain as his undisclosed income for current year from real estate transactions used in obtaining said LTCG exempt under section 10(38) and surrendered the same for tax stating the same is made voluntarily to buy peace of mind. The said averment was again reaffirmed by Shri Bitthal Das Parwal in proceedings under section 131

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

capital gain as his undisclosed income for current year from real estate transactions used in obtaining said LTCG exempt under section 10(38) and surrendered the same for tax stating the same is made voluntarily to buy peace of mind. The said averment was again reaffirmed by Shri Bitthal Das Parwal in proceedings under section 131

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

capital gains: Section 131\nstatement implicating the assessee is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference\nagainst the assessee when

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 69C (unexplained expenditure) of the Income Tax Act since the expense was neither incurred nor claimed by the assessee. ITAT rulings in Parasmal Bhandari, Reena Kumari, Soumitra Choudhury, Kanwarlal Agarwal, and Shri Amandeep Singh Bhatia stress that such additions require direct, credible evidence linking the assessee to the payments. Given the transparency of the assessee's transactions through recognized

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

131 & 133(6) to verify the genuineness of the claim and cannot proceed on surmises.” CIT vs Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (Bombay High Court) S.10(38)/69: Fact that a small amount invested in “penny” stocks gave rise to huge capital gains in a short period does not mean that the transaction is “bogus” if the documentation and evidences cannot

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

131 & 133(6) to verify the genuineness of the claim and cannot proceed on surmises.” CIT vs Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (Bombay High Court) (Caselaws Paper Book Pages 17-28) S.10(38)/69: Fact that a small amount invested in “penny” stocks gave rise to huge capital gains in a short period does not mean that the transaction is “bogus

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

131/ 133(6) or otherwise, which shows that the appellant had received accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain by making cash payment to the person or his agent/ associate involved in providing such accommodation entry. The aforesaid evidences/ copies of statement/ documents/ loose pipers may be submitted to this office latest

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

131/ 133(6) or otherwise, which shows that the appellant had received accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain by making cash payment to the person or his agent/ associate involved in providing such accommodation entry. The aforesaid evidences/ copies of statement/ documents/ loose pipers may be submitted to this office latest

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

131/ 133(6) or otherwise, which shows that the appellant had received accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain by making cash payment to the person or his agent/ associate involved in providing such accommodation entry. The aforesaid evidences/ copies of statement/ documents/ loose pipers may be submitted to this office latest

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

131/ 133(6) or otherwise, which shows that the appellant had received accommodation entry in the form of Long Term Capital Gain by making cash payment to the person or his agent/ associate involved in providing such accommodation entry. The aforesaid evidences/ copies of statement/ documents/ loose pipers may be submitted to this office latest