DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) 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)

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 33 ITA No. 264

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)

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 33 ITA No. 264

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain of Rs.15,72,409/- and not on entire value of transactions i.e. 86,31,724/-. Appellant prays that shares were purchased Online, through banking channels and were duly recorded in books of accounts, thus source of the same was explained and addition so made is absolutely unwarranted and deserves to be deleted. 3.1 That, Ld.CIT(A) has further erred

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 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. 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. 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

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 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

M/S PRAMOD SAHAI BHATNAGAR HUF,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

capital gain arising on the sale of his flat in 1979 against the flat purchased in that year as also against the flat purchased on July 26, 1980, and, as held by the Commissioner in his order under section 264

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

capital gain thereafter are as under:- • PCIT v. Pramod Jain & Otheres DB Appeal No. 209/2018 dated 24.07.2018 (Raj) • CIT vs. Smt. Pooja Agarwal DBIT Appeal No. 385/2011 dated 11.09.2017 ( Raj HC) • CIT Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi (2014) 102 DTR 0342 (Raj.) M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others • MINU GUPTA vs. ITO (2018) 54 CCH 0343 KolTrib ITA No. 731/Ko1/2018

ACIT, C.C. -4, JAIPUR vs. MAVERICK COMMODITY BROKERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

capital gain thereafter are as under:- • PCIT v. Pramod Jain & Otheres DB Appeal No. 209/2018 dated 24.07.2018 (Raj) • CIT vs. Smt. Pooja Agarwal DBIT Appeal No. 385/2011 dated 11.09.2017 ( Raj HC) • CIT Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi (2014) 102 DTR 0342 (Raj.) M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others • MINU GUPTA vs. ITO (2018) 54 CCH 0343 KolTrib ITA No. 731/Ko1/2018

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

capital gain thereafter are as under:- • PCIT v. Pramod Jain & Otheres DB Appeal No. 209/2018 dated 24.07.2018 (Raj) • CIT vs. Smt. Pooja Agarwal DBIT Appeal No. 385/2011 dated 11.09.2017 ( Raj HC) • CIT Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi (2014) 102 DTR 0342 (Raj.) M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others • MINU GUPTA vs. ITO (2018) 54 CCH 0343 KolTrib ITA No. 731/Ko1/2018

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

capital gain thereafter are as under:- • PCIT v. Pramod Jain & Otheres DB Appeal No. 209/2018 dated 24.07.2018 (Raj) • CIT vs. Smt. Pooja Agarwal DBIT Appeal No. 385/2011 dated 11.09.2017 ( Raj HC) • CIT Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi (2014) 102 DTR 0342 (Raj.) M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others • MINU GUPTA vs. ITO (2018) 54 CCH 0343 KolTrib ITA No. 731/Ko1/2018

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

capital gain thereafter are as under:- • PCIT v. Pramod Jain & Otheres DB Appeal No. 209/2018 dated 24.07.2018 (Raj) • CIT vs. Smt. Pooja Agarwal DBIT Appeal No. 385/2011 dated 11.09.2017 ( Raj HC) • CIT Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi (2014) 102 DTR 0342 (Raj.) M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others • MINU GUPTA vs. ITO (2018) 54 CCH 0343 KolTrib ITA No. 731/Ko1/2018