SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain, the assessee claimed deduction under section 54 of the IT Act at Rs. 68,41,728/- as well as deduction under section 54B at Rs. 42,56,250/-. The AO observed that the assessee has sold the agricultural land whereas the deduction under section 54 is allowable on sale of residential house. The AO further noted that

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

Section 69C (unexplained expenditure) of the Income Tax Act since the expense was neither incurred nor claimed by the assessee. ITAT rulings in Parasmal Bhandari, Reena Kumari, Soumitra Choudhury, Kanwarlal Agarwal, and Shri Amandeep Singh Bhatia stress that such additions require direct, credible evidence linking the assessee to the payments. Given the transparency of the assessee's transactions through recognized

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. SMT. SANGEETA 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

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 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 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

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 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

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. 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

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)

capital gain. 16 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.13 It is further submitted that the various observations and the conclusions drawn by the AO in the assessment are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is trite law that suspicion however strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence (Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

201 & 209/JP/2017 and 744/JP/2018, relating to the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, relating to the appellant, wherein, it was held that no disallowance of interest could be made in respect of the amount invested by the assessee company in the subsidiaries, either

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

201 & 209/JP/2017 and 744/JP/2018, relating to the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, relating to the appellant, wherein, it was held that no disallowance of interest could be made in respect of the amount invested by the assessee company in the subsidiaries, either

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

201 & 209/JP/2017 and 744/JP/2018, relating to the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, relating to the appellant, wherein, it was held that no disallowance of interest could be made in respect of the amount invested by the assessee company in the subsidiaries, either

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

201/- 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.17,984/- u/s 69C holding it to be commission paid for getting accommodation entries. As all the grounds of appeal are interrelated

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

capital gain. 1.16 It is further submitted that the various observations and the conclusions drawn by the AO in the assessment are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is trite law that suspicion however strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence (Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 SC). The suspicion or presumption, however strong

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

201 & 209/JP/2017 and\n744/JP/2018, relating to the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and\n2014-15, relating to the appellant, wherein, it was held that no disallowance\nof interest could be made in respect of the amount invested by the\nassessee company in the subsidiaries, either u/s 36(1) (iii) or 14A of the\nAct\n05\nITA