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

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

69C of the Act respectively. 2.4 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee and the relevant observation of the ld. CIT(A) is mentioned as under:- ‘’6.3. I have carefully considered the matter. From a reading of the assessment order, it is noticed that

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)

69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration……’’ 2.2 Aggrieved of the addition so made, assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal primarily relying upon observation of AO. Present appeal has been filed against the order so passed

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

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

capital gain for money laundering was extracted in the order. Based on all these finding a show cause notice was issued to the assessee extracting all these averments made by the AO and relying on the statement on oath given by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has declared additional income

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

capital gain for money laundering was extracted in the order. Based on all these finding a show cause notice was issued to the assessee extracting all these averments made by the AO and relying on the statement on oath given by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has declared additional income

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

capital gain for money laundering was extracted in the order. Based on all these finding a show cause notice was issued to the assessee extracting all these averments made by the AO and relying on the statement on oath given by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has declared additional income

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

capital gain for money laundering was extracted in the order. Based on all these finding a show cause notice was issued to the assessee extracting all these averments made by the AO and relying on the statement on oath given by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has declared additional income

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

capital gain for money laundering was extracted in the order. Based on all these finding a show cause notice was issued to the assessee extracting all these averments made by the AO and relying on the statement on oath given by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has declared additional income

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

capital gain for money laundering was extracted in the order. Based on all these finding a show cause notice was issued to the assessee extracting all these averments made by the AO and relying on the statement on oath given by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has declared additional income

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

capital gain for money laundering was extracted in the order. Based on all these finding a show cause notice was issued to the assessee extracting all these averments made by the AO and relying on the statement on oath given by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has declared additional income

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

capital gain for money laundering was extracted in the order. Based on all these finding a show cause notice was issued to the assessee extracting all these averments made by the AO and relying on the statement on oath given by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has declared additional income

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

capital gain for money laundering was extracted in the order. Based on all these finding a show cause notice was issued to the assessee extracting all these averments made by the AO and relying on the statement on oath given by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has declared additional income

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

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 the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30% as provided under section 115BE) and further included in income an amount of Rs. 2,83,123/- under section 69C

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 the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30% as provided under section 115BE) and further included in income an amount of Rs. 2,83,123/- under section 69C

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 the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30% as provided under section 115BE) and further included in income an amount of Rs. 2,83,123/- under section 69C

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 the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30% as provided under section 115BE) and further included in income an amount of Rs. 2,83,123/- under section 69C

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 the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30% as provided under section 115BE) and further included in income an amount of Rs. 2,83,123/- under section 69C