NAYNA MUKESH SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 41(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1861/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 February 2026AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal observed that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction and provide documentary evidence to counter the Revenue's findings. Relying on High Court decisions, the tribunal held that the increase in share price was unrealistic and the transaction was sham.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income and the case was reopened for transactions involving shares of M/s. Arya Global (Kuvam International Ltd.), alleged to be a penny stock. The assessee claimed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of these shares, which the Assessing Officer (AO) treated as bogus.

What were the issues?

Whether the Long Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee on the sale of penny stock shares was genuine or bogus, and if the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 68,Section 69C,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR
For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR
Hearing: 11.02.2026Pronounced: 27.02.2026

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned

Commissioner of Income Tax [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless Appeal Centre

(‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12. 2. As there was no representation on behalf of the assessee inspite of several

opportunities given, notably the Bench had also on the earlier occasion directed the assessee to appear inspite of giving a last opportunity, none appeared before us on behalf

of the assessee. We, therefore, proceed to decide this appeal by hearing the Learned

Depa

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 10(38)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →