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

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

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

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 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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital gains\nIncome arising from transfer of long term securities (Penny stock) - Assessment years\n2012-13 and 2013-14 - Assessee purchased shares of a company and earned long-term\ncapital gain(LTCG) on sale of same - He claimed exemption of LTCG under section\n10(38) - Assessing Officer opined that assessee had made huge profit out of said\ninvestment because

VIPUL KUMAR MODI ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

long term capital gain claimed by the assessee on shares of this company. It is noted that the AO made queries regarding slump sale ie. transfer of undertakings, purchase cost of undertakings, sale consideration undertakings, valuations of undertakings, details of calculation of net worth of undertakings. Form 3CA report of accountant in respect of slum sale etc. From this

ADITYA BAHETI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain which was exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. We therefore,consideringthetotalityofthefactsofthecaseasdiscussed hereinaboveareoftheviewthattheld.CIT(A)rightlydeletedtheadditionmade bytheAssessingOfficer.Inthatviewofthematter,wedonotseeanymeritin this appeal of the Department. Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheRevenueis dismissed.” 16 Aditya Baheti vs. ITO 5) Hon’bleBombayHighCourtinCITv.ShyamR.Pawar(2015)54taxmann.com 108 on a similar issue has held: “Assessee declared capital gain in sale of shares of two companies-Assessing Officer, observing

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

Price. Cost Expens Cost of\nel Year Year\nes Improvel\nCost\nPLOT 87, HBU NAGAR\nAJMER\n15/02/2\n006\n034/32\n670000\n311740\n000\n000\n000\n358260\n0.00\n670000\n165000\n0.00\n00\n00\nPEARL ANANDA (500\n2013-14\n280041\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n260041\n0.00\n260041\n0.00\n0.00\nVALUE\n00\n00\nTotal\n930041\n311740\n0.00\n000\n000\n618301\n0.00\n930041\n165000\n0.00

PARASMAL BHANDARI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Making The Impugned Addition & Not Providing Any Opportunity Of Cross Examination Which Is In Gross Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice.

transfer in the assessee's bank account with HDFC. None of these evidences or documents have been negated or have been inquired upon by the Assessing Officer or ld. CIT (A). Learned Assessing Officer without any material or information on record pertaining to the assessee has referred to some inquiry conducted by Investigation Wing Kolkata way back, wherein racket

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

transfer of long-term capital asset being equity shares of company shall not be form part of total income if securities transaction tax is applicable on such transaction. In the present case, the share in which Appellant was invested were long term capital assets and it is clearly evident from the contract notes that securities transaction tax was charged

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

long term capital gain which is exempt from tax or short term capital loss for set off with other nature of income so as to reduce the tax liability.\nThe stock is held for 12 months in which time price is artificially raised to a significant level and the said stock is sold with the assistance of the broker which

SMT. MANJU AGRAWAL,BHARTPUR vs. ITO, BHARTPUR

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

price movement of shares. 3.4 On going through the above information, it is crystal clear that the appellant had indulged in bogus long term capital gain and claimed the amount as exempt u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act by way of taking accommodation entry. The purchase of shares is an off market transaction. The appellant had made investment through

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house (hereafter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

price as on 18.06.2015 Rs. 27,89,92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

price as on 18.06.2015 Rs. 27,89,92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

price as on 18.06.2015 Rs. 27,89,92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee