M.L.PUGALIA AND OTHERS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-35(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1841/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 June 2022AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of penny stock and bogus long-term capital gains is squarely covered by the Calcutta High Court's decision. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were affirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(38) for long-term capital gains from share sales. The Assessing Officer made additions, which were upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether long-term capital gains from penny stocks are eligible for exemption under Section 10(38) and if additions under Section 68 are justified for bogus gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.1840/Kol/2019
I.T.A. No.1841/Kol/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Manisha Pugalia…………………..…......................................……….……Appellant C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [PAN: AKLPP5897P] vs. ITO, Ward-35(4), Kolkata……….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 M.L Pugalia and Others HUF..…..…......................................……….……Appellant C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [PAN:AAGHM5438N] vs. ITO, Ward-35(4), Kolkata……….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : June 15, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : June 16, 2022

ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: Both the appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders both dated 30.05.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-10, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The identical issue involved in both the appeals is relating to the disallowance of claim of exemption u/s 10(38) in respect of long-term capital gains arising from the sale of shares. &1841/Kol/2019 Manisha Pugalia & M.L Pugalia and Others HUF Assessment Year: 2015-16 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has been fair enough to state that since the issue involved in these appeals is relating to the penny stock and the same is squarely covered against the assessee by the recent decision of the Calcutta High Court vide common order dated 14.06.2022 in a batch of 90 appeals with a lead case titled as PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj in IA No.GA/2/2022 and Others. The ld. Counsel has submitted that the facts and issue involved in the above appeals of the assessee are identical to that were before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court vide its decision dated 14.06.2022 (supra) has affirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect of bogus long-term capital gains. In view of this, both the appeals of the assessee are hereby dismissed.

4.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stands dismissed.

Kolkata, the 16th June, 2022.

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →