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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

long term capital gain 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

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

long term capital gain. While so observing, the authorities held that the assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in a unknown company worth Rs. 5/- had jumped to Rs. 485/- in no time. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there

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

ITO, WARD-2, HANUMANGARH vs. SMT. LALITA SARAF , HANUMANGARH TOWN

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed and the Cross objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainithe Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Lalita Saraf, Ward-2, Hanumangarh C/O Mangi Lal Saraf, In Front Of Mandi Studio, Hanumangarh Town

long term capital gains, application of share money or introducing money as gift rather all the purchases and sales were vouched and the accounts were supported by the stock register. Thus, there was no case for invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act at the level of the Assessing Officer who had not found any hidden profit

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

gains of business or profession" The judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant also approve this view. Ld ITAT in its order for AY 2016-17 in the case of appellant has also computed income of the appellant without making separate addition on account of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act though the appellant had disallowed amount

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

gain or u/s 48, 56 or u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the law and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any provision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

long time. The AO held that sundry creditors shown in the books of accounts to the extent of Rs. Rs. 34,76,10,409/- are not genuine and, therefore, the same are added to the income of the assessee. It is the common practice that once the trade credits were accepted in the year when these are introduced