KIRAN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

68,790 Security guard Rs. 63,380 Security guard Rs. 57,508 Security guard Rs. 52,734 Security guard Rs. 49,954 Security guard Rs. 40,000 Security guard Rs. 21,361 Rs. 15,63,529 Total income Rs. 3,67,862 4.3.2 The AO observed that the assesee has documentary evidence in support of boundary wall and mittibharai which

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 68 of the IT act by treating the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of\nshares as unexplained cash

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

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 Madan

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital, where contributors were found with no means.\nUnder para 8.28\nIn the case of Pr. CIT(Central)-1 Vs NRA Iran & Steel (P) Ltd. 412 ITR 161\n(SC)(2019), the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the Revenue Appeal. On the facts of\nthe present case, clearly the assessee company failed to discharge the onus\nrequired under section 68

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

capital gain has accrued to the assessee. CIT (A) further held that funds received by the assessee is unaccounted income of the assessee and chargeable to tax u/s 68 of the act. On the matrix as held by the Honorable Delhi high court the above issue falls within the scope of the provision of section

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)

section 143 (3) of the act, long-term capital gain were accepted after detailed enquiries, now it cannot be said that the capital gain earned by the assessee is to be taxed u/s 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, read with section 45 and 254, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit(Condonation of delay) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order upholding capital gain

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

section 143\n(3) of the act, long-term capital gain were accepted after detailed enquiries, now\nit cannot be said that the capital gain earned by the assessee is to be taxed u/s 68

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)

68 Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: Reliance by AO on statements recorded by the Investigation Wing to conclude that the capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice as held in CCE Vs Andaman Timber Industries 127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 68 of the Act in respect of\ndeposits made into the bank account”.\n2.29. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case\nof Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 [PB 198-213] in\nwhich judgment is delivered in the background of promulgation of High\nDemonetization Bank Notes (Demonetization

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

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

capital gains. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT. 214 ITR 801 is squarely applicable to the case. Though the assessee has received the amounts by way of account payee cheques the transactions cannot be treated as genuine in the 18 SMT SITA DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD

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

Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included

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

Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included

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

Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included

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

Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included

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

Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included

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 143 (3) of the act, long-term capital gain were accepted after detailed enquiries,\nnow it cannot be said that the capital gain earned by the assessee is to be taxed u/s 68

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

68 Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: Reliance by AO on statements recorded by the Investigation Wing to conclude that the capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice as held in CCE Vs Andaman Timber Industries 127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence