BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4% expenditure on sales proceeds of shares on account of commission\nand other expenses to realize such bogus capital gain and added Rs.123680/-\nBrief facts of the order:\nThe assessee aggrieved with the order of the Ld AO has filed appeal with CIT (A)\non 12/12/2017 The CIT(A) under faceless regime had issued notice of hearing on\n01/11/2022

UDAI SINGH RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

250. Hence, the ld. AR has submitted that in the absence of any cost of acquisition of the land in question no capital gain is chargeable. 5 Shri Udai Singh Rathore vs. ITO, Jaipur 6. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR have been distinguished by the Full Bench

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

4) That the commissioner Appeals has grossly erred in holding and sustaining the order passed by the assessing officer while for not allowing the set off of the business loss of Rs. 10,59,845/- from the long term capital gain and also wrongly held that income from capital gain could not be set off from business loss as assessee

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The impugned order u/s. 143(3) dated 30.11.2018 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed. 2. Deduction claimed

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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

250/- and claimed exempted U/s 10(38) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the transactions of purchase and sale of equity shares of listed companies were duly recorded in the books of account and capital gain arising from the sale of shares were reflected in the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee. The assessee

SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

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

section 68 or not. In the case of NR Portfolio, it was held that the genuineness and credibility are deeper and obtrusive. Similarly, the bank statements provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble court in the case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt Ltd, wherein

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates proper reasoning and a fair opportunity to challenge evidence. Judicial precedents confirm that denying cross-examination renders the assessment unsustainable. Therefore, the Assessee requests deletion of these unverified additions and a remittal for proper investigation. Ground 3: Lack of Nexus, Validity of Exchange-Traded Transactions, and Predetermined Conclusion The AO failed

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

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

capital gain of exemption u/s 10(38) of I.T.\nAct do not suffer from infirmities and cannot be held as bogus and accordingly\naddition so made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is hereby deleted.\n3.1 As regards Ground No. 4 of the assessee, the Bench after hearing both the parties\nfinds that this ground relates

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 gains tax, did not disclose the profits arising on its sale. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS which was finalized u/s 143(3) of the IT Act. 1961 determining total income Rs. 1,14,75,790/- on 05.12.2016 An addition of Rs 1,14,75,791/-was made on account of LTCG on sale of the impugned

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act.\n1.23The ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the evidences and details submitted, confirmed the action\nof the ld. AO by primarily quoting numerous case laws on human probabilities, however again\nno defect whatsoever was pointed out in the documentary evidences furnished by assessee and\nthese documentary evidences were not rebutted

SHIVA CORPORATION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

250(4) if prima facie an information is necessary to examine the\nclaim of the assessee. Similarly, the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court has been followed in DCIT vs. Pradeep Oxygen (P) Ltd\n(2001) 71 TTJ 662\nIn view of the above, this contention of the appellant is accepted and\nthe data available in public domain

SMT. VANITA TEKRIWAL,FLAT NO.715, SUN N MOON BELVEDERE PARK, SWAGE FARM CIRCLE, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections 3d 3778270 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F/54G/54GA e Net balance (3c-3d) 3e Nil However, ‘0’ is shown in Part B-TI, column 4(b) (PB 14) and in Schedule CYLA, row no. (v) (PB 22) which shows that data of Schedule CG of the return was not ported in the department software whereas it was filled by the assessee. (g) Apart from

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain tax, it was duty of the assessee as an agent and representative assessee of the seller which assessee failed to make payment of tax.” which in effect, demonstrate consistent application of and in continuation of the earlier orders passed in the capacity of the representative assessee. Further, as rightly pointed out by the ld CIT(A), mere mentioning

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain tax, it was duty of the assessee as an agent and representative assessee of the seller which assessee failed to make payment of tax.” which in effect, demonstrate consistent application of and in continuation of the earlier orders passed in the capacity of the representative assessee. Further, as rightly pointed out by the ld CIT(A), mere mentioning

GANPATLAL AGARWAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 45(1) of Income Tax Act’ 1961 states “Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET” shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head “CAPITAL GAIN”. Whereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered “SALE VALUE” as “CAPITAL GAIN”, whereas complete details were filed to A.O. during assessment proceedings / u/sec. 154 even sale deed