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)

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 be treated as bogus unexplained income if the paper work is in order

SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

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

price. However, the appellant has submitted that no actual sale/purchase had taken place as the matter failed to resolve before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and hence the agreement to sell and purchase was cancelled. Since no actual sale/purchase had taken place therefore there is no question of any incidence of capital gain. The matter was remanded

ITO, WARD-1, BHARATPUR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

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

price. However, the appellant has submitted that no actual sale/purchase had taken place as the matter failed to resolve before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and hence the agreement to sell and purchase was cancelled. Since no actual sale/purchase had taken place therefore there is no question of any incidence of capital gain. The matter was remanded

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)

term capital gain in the case of the assessee and he made further inquiry (in the case of the assessee no enquiries were made) that during the year assessee had purchased 45,000 shares of M/s Ankur International Ltd. at varying rates from Rs. 2.06 to Rs. 3.10 per share and sold them within a short span of six-seven

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

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 Term capital gains claimed exempt u/s 10(38) cannot be treated

KIRAN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

short period was given is found unacceptable. Further from the submission it is noticed that no new documentary evidences have been brought vide above reply. From the above details narrated in the order, it can be seen that the assessee enhanced the cost of improvement on mittibharai and boundary wall and added expenses on security guard in the revised computation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

transfer price selling price Less: Cost of investment in shares of CTL-(39343+0.18) 39,344.07 Short term capital loss as per income tax 39,192.69) It may be noted that although the book value of the shares of CTL was 118.91 lakhs (118.73 lakhs + 0.18 lakhs), the appellant considered the fair market value of Rs.151.38 lakhs as determined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

transfer price selling price Less: Cost of investment in shares of CTL-(39343+0.18) 39,344.07 Short term capital loss as per income tax 39,192.69) It may be noted that although the book value of the shares of CTL was 118.91 lakhs (118.73 lakhs + 0.18 lakhs), the appellant considered the fair market value of Rs.151.38 lakhs as determined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

transfer price selling price Less: Cost of investment in shares of CTL-(39343+0.18) 39,344.07 Short term capital loss as per income tax 39,192.69) It may be noted that although the book value of the shares of CTL was 118.91 lakhs (118.73 lakhs + 0.18 lakhs), the appellant considered the fair market value of Rs.151.38 lakhs as determined

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

term capital gain in the case of the assessee and he\nmade further inquiry (in the case of the assessee no enquiries were made) that\nduring the year assessee had purchased 45,000 shares of M/s Ankur\nInternational Ltd. at varying rates from Rs. 2.06 to Rs. 3.10 per share and sold\nthem within a short span of six-seven

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)

transfers, for which Shri Deepak Goel has admitted to have provided ante-dated contract notes to his client, which was then used by the appellant to claim bogus LTCG. Thus, the appellant beneficiary's own unaccounted money was camouflaged as exempt LTCG and no tax was paid by him. The cash from appellant beneficiary was introduced into M/s Asian Bulls

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

short-term\ncapital loss of Rs.391,92,69,355 arising on account of extinguishment and\nconsequent transfer of shares in CTL as under:\nParticulars\n(Rs. Lakhs)\nFair value of shares in CVL received (as per the report of Price 151.38\nWaterhouse Coopers) being transfer price selling price\nLess: Cost of investment in shares of CTL-(39343+0.18)\nShort term

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

short-term\ncapital loss of Rs.391,92,69,355 arising on account of extinguishment and\nconsequent transfer of shares in CTL as under:\nParticulars\n(Rs. Lakhs)\nFair value of shares in CVL received (as per the report of Price 151.38\nWaterhouse Coopers) being transfer price selling price\nLess: Cost of investment in shares of CTL-(39343+0.18)\nShort term

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

short-term capital loss - Further, there was nothing to show\nthat information produced above was applicable to assessee Materials based on\nwhich said report was prepared had also not been placed on record by revenue\nConclusion arrived at by Assessing Officer was based on suspicion created by\ninformation that shares of IISL and SRK were penny stocks - Whether, on facts

BALVEER SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(3) JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

transfer from ITO, Ward-3(1), Jaipur to ITO, Ward-\n3(3), Jaipur in compliance to order u/s 127 of the I.T. Act of Pr.\nCommissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur. Due to change of incumbent, a\nnotice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 17.06.2019 &\n10.07.2019, which was served through postal authorities and also on\nITBA

RAHUL KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

prices as sham transaction as an attempt to book short term capital loss. 1.8 In the present case, the transaction of the assessee is held bogus only and only on the basis of general report of the Investigation Wing. The report was prepared only on the basis of statements of various persons without referring to any underlying documents. From

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