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

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

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 with

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

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

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 with

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. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

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 with

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

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

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 with

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. 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. 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

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 with

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

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

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 with

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

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

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 with

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

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

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 with

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 declared by the assessee is not arising from forfeiture of share application money but it was due to transfer of shares prior to the payment of the final call money. However, the Assessing Officer in the concluding part of the reasons recorded has stated that in order to avoid the tax on capital gain

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 declared by the assessee is not arising from forfeiture of share application money but it was due to transfer of shares prior to the payment of the final call money. However, the Assessing Officer in the concluding part of the reasons recorded has stated that in order to avoid the tax on capital gain

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

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

short term capital gain is running by the operators based on Delhi, Kolkata & Mumbai etc. They proved facility to convert black money in exempted income u/s 10(38) of the IT. Act on commission of 6% by bogus long term capital gain entry. The syndicate of scam operators 8 SMT SITA DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR managed

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

short the Act). Following grounds have been taken by the assessee: “1. That the ld. CIT(A)-2 not allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee U/s 54B of Rs. 5,39,67,384/- on sale of agriculture land and confirmed the addition made by the A.O. 2. That the appellant have crave permission to add, alter, amend or delete

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

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

Short Term Capital Gain)/ indexed cost ( in case of Long Term Capital Gain of such land to the partner. 7.4 Section 50C states that where the consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer of a land or building or both is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable for the purpose of Stamp Duty ( Stamp Duty