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

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

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

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

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

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

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

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

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

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

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

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

short duration. The surrounding circumstances clearly lead to only one possible conclusion that the assessee has manipulated the entire record and availed the bogus transaction of long term capital gain to convert his unaccounted income to avoid tax through long term capital gain. The ld. DR further submitted that the observations of the CIT(A) in the impugned order that

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

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

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

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

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

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

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

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

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

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

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

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

short duration. The surrounding circumstances clearly lead to only one possible conclusion that the assessee has manipulated the entire record and availed the bogus transaction of long term capital gain to convert his unaccounted income to avoid tax through long term capital gain. The ld. DR further submitted that the observations of the CIT(A) in the impugned order that

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

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

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, C.C. -4, JAIPUR vs. MAVERICK COMMODITY BROKERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

short duration. The surrounding circumstances clearly lead to only one possible conclusion that the assessee has manipulated the entire record and availed the bogus transaction of long term capital gain to convert his unaccounted income to avoid tax through long term capital gain. The ld. DR further submitted that the observations of the CIT(A) in the impugned order that

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

short duration. The surrounding circumstances clearly lead to only one possible conclusion that the assessee has manipulated the entire record and availed the bogus transaction of long term capital gain to convert his unaccounted income to avoid tax through long term capital gain. The ld. DR further submitted that the observations of the CIT(A) in the impugned order that

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

short term capital loss are bogus and the same are claimed to avoid tax on long term capital gain. However, the basis of this conclusion is the alleged attempt of the assessee to avoid tax but no material or the transaction itself was found to be out of the book of account or discovered during the survey proceedings. Therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

short term capital loss are bogus and the same are claimed to avoid tax on long term capital gain. However, the basis of this conclusion is the alleged attempt of the assessee to avoid tax but no material or the transaction itself was found to be out of the book of account or discovered during the survey proceedings. Therefore

BHOPAL SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

reassessment U/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 24/3/2014 at the total income of Rs. 32,66,490/- after making addition on account of short term capital gain

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and also erred in not treating the reassessment order passed as illegal, unjustified and void-ad-initio. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 3,29,302/- as short term capital gains

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

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

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, by the DCIT, Circle (Intl. Tax), Jaipur. 2. Assessee challenged the order of the CIT(IT)-Delhi-1 by raising the following grounds of appeal; “1. That the Impugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 27.03.2024 and notice u/s 263 are bad in law and on facts of the case and hence