DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

132A of the Act, 1961. However, the\ncompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in\nexercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to\nfulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections\n147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v. U.K. Paints (Overseas)\nLtd

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

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. 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

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. 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

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gain for the year under\nconsideration. The incriminating material found/seized in the search and\nseizure action in \"Gokul Kripa Group\" was in the form of diaries/ registers\nincluding digital record wherein transactions executed by the key persons\nof the company GKCDPL, is written/mentioned. Ld. AO thereby noted that;\na) These digital record have project wise excel sheets wherein payments

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

132A of the Act. Hence the concept of deemed date of search is \nnot applicable to sub section (3). Thus, this subsection further adds to the above \ndiscussed amendment of 2017 regarding the crucial date of search for the \npurposes of applicability of section 153C of the Act. In case the deeming date of \nsearch is treated as the date

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gain for the year under \nconsideration. The incriminating material found/seized in the search and \nseizure action in \"Gokul Kripa Group\" was in the form of diaries/ registers \nincluding digital record wherein transactions executed by the key persons \nof the company GKCDPL, is written/mentioned. Ld. AO thereby noted that; \n\na) These digital record have project wise excel sheets wherein

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

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with

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

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with

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

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with

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

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with

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

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with