LEELA TARACHAND KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -19(2)(1), , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2453/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO relied on a generalized investigation report without establishing a direct nexus between the assessee's transactions and the alleged manipulation. The assessee provided documentary evidence like bank statements and contract notes to substantiate the transactions.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed long-term capital gains from the sale of shares of Ashika Credit Capital (ASHIKACR), identified as a penny stock. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these gains as non-genuine and added them to the assessee's income under Section 68, based on an investigation report about manipulation of penny stocks.

What were the issues?

Whether the long-term capital gains from penny stock transactions are genuine, and if the AO correctly applied Section 68 without sufficient evidence connecting the assessee to market manipulation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 10(38)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Ms Saiyami Shah, ARs
For Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 04.06.2025Pronounced: 10.06.2025

आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →