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

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

1) of the Act is subject to the extended period provided under Sub-Section (4) of Section 139 of the Act. Consequently, the question of law is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Thus, the present appeal is dismissed. 5. In CIT v. Smt. Vrinda P. Issac, [2012] 24 taxmann.com 131/[2013] 212 Taxman

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

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

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

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

Capital Gains shown by him as well as by other family members are bogus accommodation entries availed by the assessee and his family members, the said statement itself is an incriminating material sufficient for framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act. The ld. CIT D/R placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

Capital Gains shown by him as well as by other family members are bogus accommodation entries availed by the assessee and his family members, the said statement itself is an incriminating material sufficient for framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act. The ld. CIT D/R placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

Capital Gains shown by him as well as by other family members are bogus accommodation entries availed by the assessee and his family members, the said statement itself is an incriminating material sufficient for framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act. The ld. CIT D/R placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

Capital Gains shown by him as well as by other family members are bogus accommodation entries availed by the assessee and his family members, the said statement itself is an incriminating material sufficient for framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act. The ld. CIT D/R placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

Capital Gains shown by him as well as by other family members are bogus accommodation entries availed by the assessee and his family members, the said statement itself is an incriminating material sufficient for framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act. The ld. CIT D/R placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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