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)

172/- made by ld.AO u/s 68 of the Act by treating genuine Long Term Capital Gain earned by assessee as mere accommodation entry and bogus and thereby withdrawing exemption u/s 10(38); and making further addition of Rs.18,743/- u/s 69C holding it to be commission paid for getting accommodation entries. As all the grounds of appeal are interrelated

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

gains from transfer of such\nasset, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing\nas a result of such transfer.\n(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 50C shall,\nso far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value adopted or\nassessed or assessable under

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

3,29,302/- under the head “ short term capital gains.” 8. In this regard, the assessee has raised a preliminary objection stating that the assessment was reopened on the ground that the assessee has made an investment in time deposit however, no such addition was finally made and the addition was made towards capital gains and income from other sources

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

3. That it can be noticed that entire amount was paid through Capital Gains\nAccount No. 61187164085. We are confident that the DRP/AO is aware that\nthe said account can be opened/utilized for only limited purpose, i.e., towards\nreinvestment in House Property of Long Term Capital Gains earned by an\nassessee and the payments from the bank is duly verified

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3 % of Rs. 70,59,315/- was also added to the income of the assessee as commission paid as per provision of section 69C of the Act. 6 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised

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

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

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

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

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

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

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

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

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

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

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

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

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

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

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

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

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

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

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

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

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

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

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

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

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

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). 16. Coming to the statements of various entry operators in the order. I have perused the statements from the Ld. AO's order & have gone through the entire statements in the order

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

Section 131 to both\nthe brokers (No notices u/s 131 were issued to the broker) from whom shares\nwere purchased and sold and statements were recorded. The AO also analyzed\nthe balance sheet of M/s Ankur International Ltd. (The balance sheet of\nBakra Pratisthan was not available before the AO, what to talk of its analysis)\nto justify

GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capitation fees. It was held that surplus/profit can be generated but they shall be used for the benefit of that educational institution. It was held that profits/surplus cannot be diverted for any other use or purposes and cannot be used for personal gains or for other business or enterprise. The Court noticed that there were various statutes/regulations which governed

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 68 of the Act\nmade merely of the basis of suspicion, presumptions and probability of preponderance\nwithout any direct evidence to prove the transactions as non-genuine or sham or\ndemonstrating appellant's involvement in any kind of manipulation is illegal and should not\nbe sustained. The findings of investigation & modus operandi in other cases narrated

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act wherein various additions were made which include the addition of treating the long term capital gains/ short term capital gains / loss from certain equities by holding the same as bogus.Appeals were field before ld. CIT(A) against such additions, which were decided substantial relief was allowed by ld. CIT(A) in all the cases