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

1) is subject to the extended period provided u/s 139(4). Hence, extended period u/s 139(4) has to be considered for the purpose of utilisation of the capital gain amount. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Kishore H. Galiya v. ITO in ITA No.7326/ Mum/2010, has held that when the assessee

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 68 of the IT act by treating the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of\nshares as unexplained cash credit. The addition of Rs.1,51,869/- being the\ndeemed commission for taking the accommodation entry, is consequential to the\nmain issue. Hence, the same is also not sustainable”.\n4. Shri Vivek Agarwal vs. ITO (2017) 292/JP/2017 (ITAT Jaipur) Order

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

131 were issued but were not served to these parties. Since, the assessee could not proof these credits in the books of account in the name of the above parties the addition was made for an amount of Rs. 3,17,55,786/- as per provisions of section 41(1) of the Act holding it to be cession of liability

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

Capital Gain of Rs.3,78,74,469/- (PB5). 2. In the first round, the case was selected for scrutiny supposedly, on the issue of examination of LTCG. Notices u/s 143(2) dt.18.09.2015 and thereafter notice u/s 142(1) were issued time to time which were duly replied and assessment was completed vide order

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

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1) on 28.12.2012. Later, the Dept. suspected suppression of\ncapital gains and issued a summons under Section 131 on 19.05.2014, to which\nthe assessee responded by 13.06.2014, admitting his mistake in the computation\nof capital

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1) on 28.12.2012. Later, the Dept. suspected suppression of\ncapital gains and issued a summons under Section 131 on 19.05.2014, to which\nthe assessee responded by 13.06.2014, admitting his mistake in the computation\nof capital

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1) on 28.12.2012. Later, the Dept. suspected suppression of\ncapital gains and issued a summons under Section 131 on 19.05.2014, to which\nthe assessee responded by 13.06.2014, admitting his mistake in the computation\nof capital

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1) on 28.12.2012. Later, the Dept. suspected suppression of\ncapital gains and issued a summons under Section 131 on 19.05.2014, to which\nthe assessee responded by 13.06.2014, admitting his mistake in the computation\nof capital

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1) on 28.12.2012. Later, the Dept. suspected suppression of\ncapital gains and issued a summons under Section 131 on 19.05.2014, to which\nthe assessee responded by 13.06.2014, admitting his mistake in the computation\nof capital

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

1).\nThe above judgement also needs to be considered in the interpretation of the \nidentifying the block of 10 years of the section 153C of the Act. There are \nnumerous judgements wherein it has been held that provisions of section 158BD \nand 153C are in substance similar and in section 158BD the block period is not \ndependent upon the date

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

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)

1(3), KOTA 2.6 Reliance is place on the judgement of ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Kamla Devi S. Doshi in ITA No.1957/Mum/2015 reported on 22.05.2017. The headnote of the said judgement is to the effect - Bogus penny stocks capital gains: Section 131

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) of Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby enclosing working and contract note for your reference. 2. you are not right in taking the Turnover for Rs. 1, 34, 92,964/-, however out of it Rs. 86, 05,364/- a LTCG turnover. Its profit is Rs. 83, 25,364/- (Rs. 86, 05,364/-minus Rs. 2, 80,000/-). Rest

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

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

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 by the\nassessee to generate Long Term Capital Gain

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gain. The AO, however, made additions on Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. account of unexplained investment by them on account of cash payment reflected in the seized material. Therefore, the AO has not disturbed the sale consideration received by the assessee and his two sons in respect of sale of land. Accordingly, when the transaction of sale

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

Section 131 statement implicating the assessee is not\nsufficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee when the documentary evidence in\nthe form of contract notes, bank statements, STT payments, etc. prove genuine purchase and sale\nof penny stock. Failure to provide cross-examination is a fatal error.\nApart from the above written submission, the ld.AR during the course

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

1:1, market price of clinker can be used to benchmark the arm’s length transaction between the Waste facility and Cement Manufacturing units that are the end users of pond ash produced by the former. Some of the assessee’s contentions were rejected, the summary of which can be found as below: Assessee’s submissions vide reply dated