PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

58,68,080/- which included long term capital gain of Rs.32,73,855/- after claiming deduction u/s 54 of Rs. 20 lakhs. 2.1 In course of assessment proceedings, assessee explained that he was having a land at Khasra Nos. 9, 12, 26 and 27 at Village Livari, Ajmer which was purchased by him for Rs. 4,40,000/- from Shri

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

Section 10(38)) would be subject to\ntaxation.\n7. Conclusion and Prayer\nFor the reasons stated above, it is respectfully submitted that:\ni.\nThe company, as a penny stock, lacks inherent worth due to its negligible asset\nbase and poor financial performance.\nii.\nThe assessee'sprofitability logic is unsubstantiated and speculative, failing to\ndemonstrate any sustainable future returns.\niii.\nThe

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

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

58 and 61 onwards were not provided, therefore this in complete statement cannot be read against the assessee in quasi-judicial the preceding nor suppose to reply by the assessee. (ii) That the statement of shri Sanjay Vora was recorded in what capacity during survey operation of office premise of M/s AnandRathi shares and stock broker Ltd, Hemar Bharwada

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain 15,72,409/- 58-62 Offered in IDS At this juncture, reliance is placed on decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Killick Nixon Ltd., Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, wherein it has been held as under: “As far as the provisions of KVSS are concerned, we agree with the contention

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

58,765/-[in Nov.- Dec., 2014] (APB 42-44) after holding the same for more than twelve months. Accordingly, Long term capital gain of Rs.29,71,725/- earned from the sale of such shares was declared in the return of income filed. As shares sold were of a listed public limited company i.e. M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and were sold

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI 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)

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

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)

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES 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)

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

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)

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

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 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

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

capital gain. On the other hand, the assessee has brought all the relevant material to substantiate its claim that transactions of the purchase and sale of shares are genuine. Even otherwise the holding of the shares by the assessee at the time of allotment subsequent to the amalgamation/ merger is not in doubt, therefore, the transaction cannot be held

DCIT, C.C. -03, JAIPUR vs. SHRI TEJENDER KUMAR FALOR, JAIPUR

Capital Gains shown by him as well as by other family members are bogus accommodation entries availed by the assessee and his family members, the said statement itself is an incriminating material sufficient for framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act. The ld. CIT D/R placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

Capital Gains shown by him as well as by other family members are bogus accommodation entries availed by the assessee and his family members, the said statement itself is an incriminating material sufficient for framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act. The ld. CIT D/R placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

Capital Gains shown by him as well as by other family members are bogus accommodation entries availed by the assessee and his family members, the said statement itself is an incriminating material sufficient for framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act. The ld. CIT D/R placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

Capital Gains shown by him as well as by other family members are bogus accommodation entries availed by the assessee and his family members, the said statement itself is an incriminating material sufficient for framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act. The ld. CIT D/R placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

Capital Gains shown by him as well as by other family members are bogus accommodation entries availed by the assessee and his family members, the said statement itself is an incriminating material sufficient for framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act. The ld. CIT D/R placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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 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