ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KEYUR DILIP SHAH, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and found the LTCG claim to be genuine. It distinguished the case from typical 'penny stock' manipulations due to the appellant's long holding period of over two decades and consistent receipt of dividends, concluding that the price manipulation could not be attributed to the appellant.
What were the facts?
The appellant claimed Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from selling shares of M/s. Rajlakshmi Mills Ltd., which were purchased in 1994 and held for two decades, during which dividends were received. The appellant claimed exemption under Section 10(38) of the I.T. Act. The Revenue disputed the genuineness of the LTCG, suspecting 'penny stock' manipulation.
What were the issues?
Whether the long-term capital gains claimed by the appellant from the sale of shares were genuine or constituted 'penny stock' manipulation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
In the above cited appeal, the issue to be adjudicated is whether the long term capital gains (LTCG) claimed by appellant by selling the shares of M/s. Rajlakshmi Mills Ltd, is genuine or not.
The appellant claims that these shares were bought by him in 1994 and in proof of the same filed copies of share certificates, details of shareholders of company as on 30.9.2010. The appellant also claimed he used to receive dividend from company earlier and he kept these shares for almost two decades and sold the shares in this year and paid STT, reflected in Return of Income and claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act. The summary of the arguments of Ld. AR of the appellant to claim of Long term capital gains is as follows :- a) The appellant purchased the shares and kept for two decades and was getting dividend also. b) Purchase and sale of shares was done through registered broker and banking channels.
2 c) He is not involved in any price rigging of the shares. d) Relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai in similar circumstances in the case of his relative Ketan Dilip Shah (ITA No. 2238/2025 dated 15.7.2025 which was held in favour of appellant. e) The Ld. CIT(A) has correctly held that the long term capital gains claimed by appellant is genuine.
The Ld. DR relied on the assessment order, where the Investigation Wing report of Kolkata Investigation Wing was extensively quoted
Heard both sides. In similar circumstances, the ITAT Mumbai held the case in favour of appellant, vide the order quoted above. There were no independent enquiries by Ld. AO to show that the Long Term Capital Gains claimed by appellant is bogus. The cases-law quoted by Ld. AO and in Grounds of Appeal are distinguishable on facts. Penny stocks manipulated are done by appellant by buying and selling the shares in a very short span and the appellant exit when the there is quoted at very high rate. Such characteristics are absent in this case. As the appellant purchased these shares more than two decades back and was receiving dividend earlier, the same cannot be treated as penny stock and price manipulated cannot be attributed to him. Hence, the claim of LTCG of appellant is correct and valid. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is confirmed and appeal of Revenue is Dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/09/2025.
More judgments on Section 10(38)
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Karan Dilipkumar Patel L/H of Late… vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi…ITA 353/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jay Patel, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-3(1), RaipurITA 684/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026