CHANCHAL KUMARI JAIN ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.213/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Chanchal Kumari Jain Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 143-A/A, Shastri Nagar Ward-3, Bhilwara Vs. Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311 001. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adnpj-8347-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

bogus short-term capital gain (STCG). Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 26/09/2016. 3.2 The assessee reflected STCG of Rs.1.90 Lacs which arose from sale of 25000 shares of an entity namely M/s Anukaran Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (ACEL). The same were sold for Rs.5.40 Lacs during the year as against purchase

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

term capital gain. While so\nobserving, the authorities held that the assessee has not tendered cogent\nevidence to explain as to how the shares in a unknown company worth Rs.\n5/- had jumped to Rs. 485/- in no time. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\nheld that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no\nfinancial

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

short or 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

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