TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n appeal by the assessee against the order dated 16/03/2011 of CIT(A) Central, Jaipur. The only effective ground raised in this appeal reads as under: "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition in estimating selling price of 60000 shares of M/s. Unique Propcon Pvt. Ltd and 9700 shares of M/s Marudhara Propcon Pvt. Ltd. Sold by the appellant o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ival submissions, Ld. D.R., although, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A), but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. 4. After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material on record, it is noticed that a similar issue having identical facts had already been adjudicated by the ITAT, Jaipur Bench "B", Jaipur in the aforesaid refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Propcon Pvt. Ltd. and on these shares capital gain was worked out at Rs. 360/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that entire shares of M/s. Marudhara Propcon Pvt. Ltd. stood transferred to another company. The assessee and that company was owning an Office at 233 Ganapati Plaza having an area of 700 sq. ft. which was acquired for Rs. 6,30,000/-. In view of this fact, the AO inferre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee, we find that the addition made by AO which is confirmed by ld. CIT (A) has no leg to stand. Assessee has sold the shares of a company and not the land of that company. Therefore, by taking into consideration of the land value owned by that company making any addition in the hands of the assessee, in our view is not justified. There is no provision under the IT Act that value of land ....