SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

Capital Gain Rs. 5,75,691.00 (by disallowing deduction u/s 54F) Cash deposits in bank account alleged Rs.11,38,750.00 3 ITA 49/JP/2018_ Gulab Chand Meena Vs. ACIT(OSD) as unexplained Interest Income Rs. 2,924.00 Also, deduction claimed by assessee u/s VIA to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- was not given. By the impugned order

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)

capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments

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)

invested in “penny” stocks gave rise to huge capital gains in a short period does not mean that the transaction is “bogus” if the documentation and evidences cannot be faulted. Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) (Caselaws PB Pages 85-93) Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: Long Term capital gains claimed exempt u/s 10(38) cannot

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

invested in “penny” stocks gave rise to huge capital gains in a short period does not mean that the transaction is “bogus” if the documentation and evidences cannot be faulted. Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: Long Term capital gains claimed exempt u/s 10(38) cannot be treated as bogus unexplained

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

invested in “penny” stocks gave rise to huge capital gains in a short period does not mean that the transaction is “bogus” if the documentation and evidences cannot be faulted. Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) (Caselaws Paper Book Pages 85-93) SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL VS ACIT, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: Long

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)

unexplained expenditure on commission paid for procuring these entries of LTCG is found to be justified. The appellant has not furnished any evidence to prove that the findings of the AO are not correct with regard to expenditure made on commission for getting the accommodation entry. The appellant only argued that the capital gain claim was genuine and no such

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)

unexplained investment of assessee u/s 69 consequently, liable to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. In the light of that observation ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice on 09/03/2024. In response to the Show cause notice the assessee provided a detailed reply. Ld. PCIT perused the reply filed and found that the assessee has tried to explain

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

unexplained /\nundeclared sources. Evidence in the form of whatsapp chats retrieved\nfrom the mobile device of Shri Vishal Kothari were extracted which\npertains to to unaccounted cash investments made by various buyers in\nthe Pallacia project including that of by the assessee. Ld. AO thus based\non the corroborated internal evidence depicted in the image having\n\"Details

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

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

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

gains, assessee claimed cost of acquisition being fair market value as on 1-4- 1981 Assessing Officer held that there was no cost incurred for purchase/acquisition of tenancy rights and accordingly took cost of acquisition at nil Whether case of assessee fell under section 49(1)(iii)(a) and once capital asset in question became property of assessee

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

unexplained expenditure) of the Income Tax Act since the expense was neither incurred nor claimed by the assessee. ITAT rulings in Parasmal Bhandari, Reena Kumari, Soumitra Choudhury, Kanwarlal Agarwal, and Shri Amandeep Singh Bhatia stress that such additions require direct, credible evidence linking the assessee to the payments. Given the transparency of the assessee's transactions through recognized channels

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

invested in the shares of two companies for the first time on the advice\nof an Income tax consultant / whereas here the assessee was a regular investor in\nshares from last five years.\n• The issue involved was whether the profit on sale of alleged shares constituted long\nterm capital gains or business income. The AO held the profits

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

unexplained expenditure on commission paid for procuring these entries of LTCG is\nfound to be justified. The appellant has not furnished any evidence to prove that the\nfindings of the AO are not correct with regard to expenditure made on commission for\ngetting the accommodation entry. The appellant only argued that the capital gain claim\nwas genuine and no such

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

unexplained. As stated above, the source of investment made by the assessee towards purchase of immovable property worth Rs. 1,05,12,601/- is not explained. Therefore, the said amount of Rs. 1,05,12,601/- represents undisclosed investment of the assessee for A.Y. 2016-17.” Vide page 2 of the assessment order”. 2. Thereafter, the ld. AO has issued

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain computation, as made by the Assessing Officer, thus stands disapproved. The assessee gets the relief accordingly.” 48. Even if we look at the situation prior to the introduction of third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act, various Coordinate Benches have held that where there is difference of less than 10%, the same shall be ignored

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain computation, as made by the Assessing Officer, thus stands disapproved. The assessee gets the relief accordingly.” 48. Even if we look at the situation prior to the introduction of third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act, various Coordinate Benches have held that where there is difference of less than 10%, the same shall be ignored

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)

investment and long term capital gains in shares. It will be relevant to record that the present assessee might have been in consultation with M/s. B.C. Purohit & Company and a member of the group and has drawn inference regarding providing accommodation entries and the assessing officer was of the view that details made available by the assessee as regards unsecured

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

invested in shares of \"EINS Edutech Ltd.\" and later on sold such shares after booking the expected profit and considering that the share prices would not raise further as reflected by market charts. The sale of shares resulted in short term capital gain and had been properly declared as Short Term Capital Gain while filing return of income.\nFrom

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains\nwere earned by the appellant, which was later admitted by the learned AO. However, learned AO\nproceeded to make addition on entirely new ground, ie, 'unexplained investment