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

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

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

capital gain on shares) of IT Act and Rs.2323695/- should be added in total income U/S 68 of the IT. Act and Rs.1,45,421/-be added U/S 69C of IT Act being unexplained expenditure incurred by way of commission. 2 That the assessee has already narrated in previous replies that she is doing. investment

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

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

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

unexplained credits of LTCG made by the A.O. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 71,76,181/- on account of Commission paid for acquiring on such accommodation entries u/s 69C made by the AO.” 5. The assessee

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

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

unexplained credits of LTCG made by the A.O. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 71,76,181/- on account of Commission paid for acquiring on such accommodation entries u/s 69C made by the AO.” 5. The assessee

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

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

unexplained credits of LTCG made by the A.O. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 71,76,181/- on account of Commission paid for acquiring on such accommodation entries u/s 69C made by the AO.” 5. The assessee

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

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

unexplained credits of LTCG made by the A.O. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 71,76,181/- on account of Commission paid for acquiring on such accommodation entries u/s 69C made by the AO.” 5. The assessee

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

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

unexplained credits of LTCG made by the A.O. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 71,76,181/- on account of Commission paid for acquiring on such accommodation entries u/s 69C made by the AO.” 5. The assessee

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

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

unexplained credits of LTCG made by the A.O. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 71,76,181/- on account of Commission paid for acquiring on such accommodation entries u/s 69C made by the AO.” 5. The assessee

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

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

unexplained credits of LTCG made by the A.O. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 71,76,181/- on account of Commission paid for acquiring on such accommodation entries u/s 69C made by the AO.” 5. The assessee

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

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

unexplained credits of LTCG made by the A.O. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 71,76,181/- on account of Commission paid for acquiring on such accommodation entries u/s 69C made by the AO.” 5. The assessee

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

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

unexplained credits of LTCG made by the A.O. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 71,76,181/- on account of Commission paid for acquiring on such accommodation entries u/s 69C made by the AO.” 5. The assessee

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