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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Capital Gain. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,52,42,549/- which includes addition of Rs. 43,639/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,42,490/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

Capital Gain for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,30,65,828/- which includes addition of Rs. 42,379/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,23,519/- on account

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

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

b) The penalty was levied by drawing the inference only from the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act whereas there is no incriminating material or evidence was found during search to prove that the assessee was having undisclosed income. c) Documents and evidences were filed to prove the genuineness of exempted LTCG which were remained uncontroverted. 4

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

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

Capital Gain and commission charges of Rs. 9,000/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act at the total income of Rs. 12,24,18,200/-. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated

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

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

b) The penalty was levied by drawing the inference only from the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act whereas there is no incriminating material or evidence was found during search to prove that the assessee was having undisclosed income. c) Documents and evidences were filed to prove the genuineness of exempted LTCG which were remained uncontroverted. 4

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

132(4) of the Act is on account of advances given for purchases of land. The assessee has declared the income as salary received from partnership firm, interest from partnership firm, capital gain short term and long term both and income from other 23 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. sources, apart from the surrendered income

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived; (ii) substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and (iii) on or before the specified date–– (A) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; and (B) furnishes the return of income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain arising from the sale of listed shares is exempted U/s 10(38) of the Act. The withdrawal of claim of exemption by the assessee in the statement U/s 132(4) of the Act, ignoring the supporting evidence of genuineness of the claim, would not ipso facto amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain arising from the sale of listed shares is exempted U/s 10(38) of the Act. The withdrawal of claim of exemption by the assessee in the statement U/s 132(4) of the Act, ignoring the supporting evidence of genuineness of the claim, would not ipso facto amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. MALTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain arising from the sale of listed shares is exempted U/s 10(38) of the Act. The withdrawal of claim of exemption by the assessee in the statement U/s 132(4) of the Act, ignoring the supporting evidence of genuineness of the claim, would not ipso facto amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain arising from the sale of listed shares is exempted U/s 10(38) of the Act. The withdrawal of claim of exemption by the assessee in the statement U/s 132(4) of the Act, ignoring the supporting evidence of genuineness of the claim, would not ipso facto amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain arising from the sale of listed shares is exempted U/s 10(38) of the Act. The withdrawal of claim of exemption by the assessee in the statement U/s 132(4) of the Act, ignoring the supporting evidence of genuineness of the claim, would not ipso facto amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain arising from the sale of listed shares is exempted U/s 10(38) of the Act. The withdrawal of claim of exemption by the assessee in the statement U/s 132(4) of the Act, ignoring the supporting evidence of genuineness of the claim, would not ipso facto amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain and income from other sources. A search and seizure action was carried out on 26th February, 2014 wherein the assessee while making the statement under section 132(4) of the Act disclosed an income of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The assessee filed his return of income on 27th December, 2014 declaring income

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain and income from other sources. A search and seizure action was carried out on 26th February, 2014 wherein the assessee while making the statement under section 132(4) of the Act disclosed an income of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The assessee filed his return of income on 27th December, 2014 declaring income

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

132(4) has admitted and disclosed an amount of Rs. 7,22,00,000/- as undisclosed income. The assessee filed his return of income on 31.01.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 12,61,51,540/- which included undisclosed income of Rs. 7,22,00,000/-. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153B(1)(b

SHRI KRISHNA YADAV,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

capital gain and civil contract work. A search was conducted on 4th /5th September, 2013 in the case of the assessee. During the course of search and seizure action, certain incriminating material were found and seized which include a black colour note book containing certain entries at pages 1 to 13. The assessee was asked to explain the entries

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

capital gain and income from other sources. A search was conducted in case of Okay Plus JKD Group at the residential and business premises of the assessee group on 4th September, 2013. The assessee disclosed in the statement under section 132(4) an undisclosed income of Rs. 1,03,60,000/-. The assessee filed his return of income