INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

short term capital gain chargeable to tax at normal rates and has not made any undue advantage in dealing with the penny stock M/S. Eins Edutech Limited. Thus the AO instead of blindly following the report of investigation wing must have looked into surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay is allowed. 4. Apropos Ground No 1 and 2 of the assessees, brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income (e-return) on 23-07-2016 declaring total income at Rs.22,96,01,790/- for the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny 4 HINDUSTAN SALES

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone\nthe delay of 108 days in filing the appeal before us but with a cost of Rs.\n5,000/- to be deposited into the Prime Minister Relief Fund to be\ndeposited by the assessee when the assessee apply for the appeal effect of\nthis order.\n\n4.\nBrief facts of the Case are that the assessee had filed

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

short 'the Act') dated 14.12.2016. 2 Vishnu Pareek vs. CIT(A) 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. CIT(A) seriously erred in facts and law in dismissing the appeal on account of delay of 162 days in filing of appeal before him against Assessment Order dated 14.12.2016 passed u/s 147/143(3), without judiciously

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

term Capital Loss through trading of shares of Penny Stocks. The modus operandi found is that the investors/beneficiaries hold these shares for one year or so and then sale it to one of the shell private limited companies of the operator. These facts were confirmed by the stake holders’ viz. Operators/Syndicate members/Brokers which were providing accommodation entries in statements recorded

PREM DEVI BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE, C-SCHEME

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for the purposes of brevity it is hereinafter mentioned as Ld. CIT(A)) erred in sustaining the finding given by the AO in treating Long term capital gain of Rs. 61,49,716/- arising to the assessee from

OM PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGANER JAIPUR vs. WARD 4(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

short term capital gain needs to be deleted and the related\ngrounds of appeal to be allowed.\nThe ground of appeal number 3 and 4 are not pressed at present, since, the\npenalty has not been imposed yet.\nThe appellant craves your indulgence to amend, delete, modify, withdraw, add\nanyone of the Grounds of Appeal before or during the hearing

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

delay is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee relating to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several 4 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

gained in any manner whatsoever, by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It is also worth noticing that delay was also not that huge, which could not have been condoned, without putting the respondents to harm or prejudice. It is the duty of the Court to see to it that justice should be done between the parties

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

short ‘the Act’).The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The impugned order u/s. 143(3) dated 30.11.2018 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed. 2. Deduction claimed u/s. 54F not allowed

PREM JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

delay of 34 days in filing the present appeal. As per the affidavit submitted by the assessee, though he received the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the ld CIT(A) on 21.03.2020, however, due to Covid -19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown imposed by the Government, it was impossible for him to file the appeal within the prescribed limitation

SANJIVANI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court 5 Sanjivani Shikshan Sansthan, Jaipur. in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. 3. The brief facts of the case

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

short term capital gain of Rs. 9224 ** surrendered house property income of Rs. 25,129/- in the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation of income @ surrendered interest income of Rs. 1,01,430/- in the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation of income and contended that the FDR was renewed and therefore let the attention. # surrendered interest income

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

short term capital gain of Rs. 9224 ** surrendered house property income of Rs. 25,129/- in the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation of income @ surrendered interest income of Rs. 1,01,430/- in the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation of income and contended that the FDR was renewed and therefore let the attention. # surrendered interest income

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

short term capital gain of Rs. 9224 ** surrendered house property income of Rs. 25,129/- in the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation of income @ surrendered interest income of Rs. 1,01,430/- in the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation of income and contended that the FDR was renewed and therefore let the attention. # surrendered interest income

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

short term capital gain of Rs. 9224 ** surrendered house property income of Rs. 25,129/- in the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation of income @ surrendered interest income of Rs. 1,01,430/- in the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation of income and contended that the FDR was renewed and therefore let the attention. # surrendered interest income

PRIYANKA KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

short term capital gain of Rs. 9224 ** surrendered house property income of Rs. 25,129/- in the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation of income @ surrendered interest income of Rs. 1,01,430/- in the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation of income and contended that the FDR was renewed and therefore let the attention. # surrendered interest income

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

short term capital gain of Rs. 9224 ** surrendered house property income of Rs. 25,129/- in the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation of income @ surrendered interest income of Rs. 1,01,430/- in the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation of income and contended that the FDR was renewed and therefore let the attention. # surrendered interest income