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

section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand

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

section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand

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

section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

section 10(38) of the Act. Various courts have held the above view. The addition has been made without bringing on record assessee’s involvement in earning the capital gains by the active collusion in the process of manipulating prices of companies in stock market. In view of the above, the addition of Rs.29,89,956/- as presumed commission payment

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

capital gain Rs.1,14,75,791/-, Gross Total Income Rs.1,15,64,875/- Less: Deduction under Chapter VI-A Rs. 89,084/- Restricted to Income other than LTCG –Total Income Rs. 1,14,75,791/-, R/o Rs.1,14,75,790/- Assessed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act at Rs.1,14,75,790/-. Issue demand notice and challan. Charged interest

SHRI KAILASH CHAND JAT,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain on the date of conversion of the asset into stock in trade and then profit arising thereafter was assessed as business income. Therefore, it is clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee attracting the penal provision U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

gain on sale of “UTI Transportation and Logistics Fund under section 10(38), and by investment of Rs 1,99,000/- which was made from owned funds as assessee was having availability of ample of owned funds. So, no borrowing cost has been incurred towards purchase of this UTI TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS FUND and other investments which may generate exempt

SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record