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

capital gain should be Rs. 83, 22,064/-. Additionally, relying on statements regarding accommodation entries from unrelated persons is inappropriate. The AO's failure to distinguish between LTCG and STCL has led to an unjustified taxable addition. Ground No. 4: Arbitrary Addition of Fictitious Commission without Evidence The AO and CIT (A) arbitrarily added Rs. 2, 69,992/- as commission

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital 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

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

69C that assessee SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL VS ACIT, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR might have paid commission for obtaining such accommodation entry. The relevant para of AO at 3.2.1. making total addition of Rs.3004864+180292 = 3185156/- is reproduced as under:- ‘’3.2.1 Addition u/s 68:- Thus in view of the elaborate discussion made above, I hereby hold the amount of Rs.3004864/- introduced

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 68. 26 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases

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

section 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed\nincome of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High\ncourts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases\n(CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP filed by the Revenue against

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 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the\nassessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have\nheld in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases (CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP\nfiled by the Revenue against

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections

PRANATI BUILDCON, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT CEN CIR ,KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain, business or profession or income from other sources then it is to be assessed as deemed income u/s 68 or 69 family. In the present case, the addition made by the AO is u/s 69C of the Act. The section

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

69C on account of unexplained expenditure. (iii) Addition of Rs. 9,67,665/- u/s 56 by disallowing the brought forward losses. Aggrieved with the order of the Learned Assessing Officer the assessee has preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) confirmed all the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer. Aggrieved with the order

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— 1. the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and 2. the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL, HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 47,413/- as commission was provided for sale of shares as accommodation entries.” 3. The relevant facts leading to the controversy of treating the long term capital gain on sale of shares as sham/bogus transaction and addition under section

ADITYA BAHETI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Capital Gain cannot be treated as bogus, then the addition made by the AO onaccount of notional commission paid treating the same as undisclosed expenditure under section 69C

TARA SONI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders\nas to cost

Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 5,42,187 on the sale of shares of M/s Eins Edutech Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the transaction as bogus and made additions to the assessee's income under Section 69A and Rs. 27,109 as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C

KARUNA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 2(1), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

Sections 37 and 69C, as the burden to prove such expenditure lies with the Revenue. Precedents such as Parasmal Bhandari and Reena Kumari confirm that unsupported presumptions cannot justify such an addition. Your Assessee reserves the right to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 2. The brief facts

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital gain tax has also not been submitted. Hence the submission of the assessee is not acceptable. 6. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred upon me as per provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, I direct the assessing officer to initiate that clarification/explanation of the transactions recorded on the impounded documents is ascertained and examined

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital gains\nIncome arising from transfer of long term securities (Penny stock) - Assessment years\n2012-13 and 2013-14 - Assessee purchased shares of a company and earned long-term\ncapital gain(LTCG) on sale of same - He claimed exemption of LTCG under section\n10(38) - Assessing Officer opined that assessee had made huge profit out of said\ninvestment because

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

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

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

69C being treated separately, because such deemed 22 Kath Brothers vs. ACIT income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections