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

term capital gain of Rs. 11,75,100/- resulting into a net gain of Rs. 16,034/-.\nOn going through the nature of transactions, the AO doubted the genuineness of the short-\nterm capital gain in the case of the assessee and he made further inquiry (in the case of the\nassessee no enquiries were made) that during the year

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

Long Term Capital Gain earned by assessee as mere\naccommodation entry and bogus and thereby withdrawing exemption u/s 10(38);\nand making further addition of Rs.18,916/- u/s 69C holding it to be commission\npaid for getting accommodation entries. As all the grounds of appeal are\ninterrelated, the same are dealt with together for the sake of convenience.\nSubmission

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)

Long Term Capital Gain earned by assessee as mere accommodation entry and bogus and thereby withdrawing exemption u/s 10(38); and making further addition of Rs.18,743/- u/s 69C holding it to be commission paid for getting accommodation entries. As all the grounds of appeal are interrelated, the same are dealt with together for the sake of convenience. Submission

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)

prices have increased many fold times as soon as the period of one year has expired so as to avail the benefit of exempt long term gain. There is no justifiable indicator such as some significant business transaction in the case of M/s Asian Bills Pvt. Ltd. to substantiate such abnormal rise in its scrips. The onus

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

long term capital gain shown on sale of shares; more relevant among them are as under:- SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL VS ACIT, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR S.No. Particulars Paper book Page No. 1. Copy of contract notes dated 02.12.2014, 38-40 08.12.2014 and 27.11.2014 regarding shares sold 2. Copy of bank passbook of the assessee 41-43 reflecting sale consideration received

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)

long term capital gain shown on sale of shares, which are as under:- ARNAV GOYAL VS ITO, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR S.No. Particulars Paper book Page No. 1. Copy of contract notes dated 10.12.2014, 42-44 25.11.2014 and 24.11.2014 regarding shares sold 2. Copy of bank passbook of the assessee 45-48 reflecting sale consideration received 3. Copy

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Long Term Capital Gain in MIDLAND Polymers and Centron Industrial Alliance shares; the assessee submits as follows:- 7 ITA169/JP/2022 DCIT, CENTRALL CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR VS SHRI VIGYAN LODHA 1. The assessee has purchased the shares from Bombay Stock Exchange through authorized broker B. Lodha Securities Limited, Jaipur having SEBI Registration No. INB 011074730. 2. Assessee has paid to the Broker

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

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

transferred in the name of assessee 3 Copy of demat A/c in SMC Global Securities Ltd 4.Copy of balance sheet for the financial year 2012-13 The shares Satishimanto Tradelinks Ltd. Changed name Sunrise Asian Ltd 2012-13 holding was more than 18 months therefore is correct and acceptable as such long term capital gain exemption claimed

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

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

long term capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

price of the said company which led to returns of 491% for the Appellant, was completely unjustified. Pertinently, the EPS of the said company was Rs. 0.01/- as in March 2016, it was Rs. - 0.01/- as in March 2015 and -0.48/- as in March 2014. Similarly, the other financials parameters of the said company cannot justify the price in excess

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

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

long term capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance

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

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

long term capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance

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

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

long term capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance

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

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

long term capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance

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

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

long term capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

price of the said company which led to returns of 491% for the Appellant, was completely unjustified. Pertinently, the EPS of the said company was Rs. 0.01/- as in March 2016, it was Rs. - 0.01/- as in March 2015 and -0.48/- as in March 2014. Similarly, the other financials parameters of the said company cannot justify the price in excess

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

price of the said company which led to returns of 491% for the Appellant, was completely unjustified. Pertinently, the EPS of the said company was Rs. 0.01/- as in March 2016, it was Rs. - 0.01/- as in March 2015 and -0.48/- as in March 2014. Similarly, the other financials parameters of the said company cannot justify the price in excess

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

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

long term capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance