ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

purchased 2800 shares on 09/03/2012 for Rs.2,80,000/-. The said scrip was sold in the financial year 2014-15 for Rs,.1,58,67,077/- through the broker, Shri Suresh Rathi. The assessee claimed exemption of the LTCG of Rs.1,55,87,077/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. The Ld.AO has treated the entire transaction as bogus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. KALAWATI DEVI, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. VINESH KUMAR BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. PRAVEEN BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SOHANRAJ BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

purchaser and copy of Form 27C for your kind consideration to prove the legitimacy of claim that the transaction is duly recorded and no tax revenue has been compromised. Looking to the scenario, I request you to please grant the relief and quash the demand. A bogus demand of Rs.43,229/- u/s 206C has been created by the AO which

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

purchaser and copy of Form 27C for your kind consideration to prove the legitimacy of claim that the transaction is duly recorded and no tax revenue has been compromised. Looking to the scenario, I request you to please grant the relief and quash the demand. A bogus demand of Rs.43,229/- u/s 206C has been created by the AO which

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

purchaser and copy of Form 27C for your kind consideration to prove the legitimacy of claim that the transaction is duly recorded and no tax revenue has been compromised. Looking to the scenario, I request you to please grant the relief and quash the demand. A bogus demand of Rs.43,229/- u/s 206C has been created by the AO which

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

exempted u/s 10(38) as undisclosed income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, both the AO and ld. CIT (A) erred in rejecting the documentary evidences found and seized during the course of search from which it was clearly manifest that the assessee certainly purchased and sale equity shares of scripts Sun Asian. No incriminating documents

ITO, WARD, PHALODI, PHALODI vs. M/S RAMA ALLURE LLP, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

Exempt Income 2. Deduction from total income under chapter VIA 3. Unsecured Loans Notice u/s 143(2) dated 29.06.2021 was issued and served on the assessee electronically assessee submitted reply on 15.07.2021. Further notice u/s 142(1) along with detailed questionnaire was issued and duly served upon the assessee 14.01.2021, 22.08.2022 and 3 ITO vs. Ms Rama Allure