PCIT v. Swati Bajaj

139 Taxmann.com 352High Court2022#160 most cited

What is PCIT v. Swati Bajaj authority for?

Tax authorities are entitled to examine surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities to determine the genuineness of long-term capital gains arising from the sale of manipulated penny stock, even if prima facie documents appear to support the transaction.

443

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Swati Bajaj · Swati Bajaj · section 10(38) · long term capital gain · LTCG on penny stock · bogus capital gain · manipulated shares · surrounding circumstances · human probabilities test · genuineness of transaction · onus of proof

Also reported as

446 ITR 56288 Taxmann 403

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 10(38)Section 69CSection 142(1)Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

price riggingsection 142(3)bogus ltcgbogus long term capital gainpenny stocksection 142(2)onus of proofpreponderance of probabilitysection 10(38)paper companyentry operatorcircular trading

Judgments citing PCIT v. Swati Bajaj

M/S. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

ITA 1194/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.931,1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198/KOL/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/AYrs:2019-20,2016-17,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21&2021-22) M/s Shakambhari Ispat & Vs DCIT, Central Circle-3(3) Kolkata Power Limited, C/o M/s Salarpuria Jajodia& Co. 7, C.R.Avenue, 3rd Floor, Kolkata West Bengal-700072 PAN No. :AADCM 1189 L AND आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.1436,1515,1541, 1591, 1560, 1561/KOL/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/AYrs:2016-17,2017-18,2018-19,2021-22,2019-20&2020-21) DCIT, Central Circle-3(1…

Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak, Borivali Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax 32 3 Mumbai Presently Dy C I T Circle 42 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4914/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak Acit-32(3) 4, Shree Bhalchandra Kripa Presently Cit, Circle Building, Daulat Nagar Road Vs. 42(3)(1) No. 3, Borivali East Kautilya Bhavan Bkc, Mumbai-400 066. Mumbai-51. Pan : Agbpp5972D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, Ld. ADVFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…ments, ultimately deleted the identical addition, as involved in this case, by observing and holding as under: 7.2. The ld. CIT(A) in impugned appeal order respectfully relied on the order of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Swati Bajaj[2022] 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) where on same set of facts related taxability of LTCG on sale of shares considered as manipulated penny stock & 9 Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak the action of the ld. AO is confirmed. But the related to scrip "Sunrise Asian Ltd" the assessee is covered by the order of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court. Accordingly, the same would prevail on th…

Indian City Properties Limited, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1051/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ShriSanjay Chatterjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1051/KOL/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2020-2021) Indian City Properties Limited, Vs Pr.CIT, Kolkata-2 25, Thapar House, Brabourne Rd, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal PAN No. :AAACI 5534 L (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee by : ShriSanjay Chatterjee, AR रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue by : Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23/12/2025…

Dy.CIT Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwarjka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

ITA 2355/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM ITA No. 2355/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITA No. 2352/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITA No. 2353/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) ITA No. 2351/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(2), Mumbai. Room No. 1903, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. Vs. Shri. Ashok B. Jiwrajka 2801, Raheja Legend, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400025. PAN/GIR No. AACPJ3610K (Assessee) : (Respondent) C.O. No. 6…

Dy.C.I, T. Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

ITA 2353/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM ITA No. 2355/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITA No. 2352/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITA No. 2353/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) ITA No. 2351/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(2), Mumbai. Room No. 1903, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. Vs. Shri. Ashok B. Jiwrajka 2801, Raheja Legend, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400025. PAN/GIR No. AACPJ3610K (Assessee) : (Respondent) C.O. No. 64/…

Dy.C.I.T. Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

ITA 2352/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM ITA No. 2355/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITA No. 2352/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITA No. 2353/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) ITA No. 2351/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(2), Mumbai. Room No. 1903, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. Vs. Shri. Ashok B. Jiwrajka 2801, Raheja Legend, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400025. PAN/GIR No. AACPJ3610K (Assessee) : (Respondent) C.O. No. 64/Mum…

Dy C.I.T. Cent Cir -6(2), `Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2351/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM ITA No. 2355/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITA No. 2352/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITA No. 2353/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) ITA No. 2351/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(2), Mumbai. Room No. 1903, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. Vs. Shri. Ashok B. Jiwrajka 2801, Raheja Legend, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400025. PAN/GIR No. AACPJ3610K (Assessee) : (Respondent) C.O. No. 6…

DCIT - 19(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs. Dishant Deepak Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4281/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh
Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Income Mr. Dishant Deepak Shah, Tax – 19(1), B-506, Chandan Bala Apartment, Vs. Room No. 506, 5th Floor, Piramal A R Thakkar Marg, Chambers, Lalbaugh, Walkeshwar, Mumbai- 400006. PAN – CVIPS7471N Mumbai – 400012. Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Satyaprakash Singh : Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 04/11/2025 : Date of pronouncement 05/12/2025 O R D E R Per O. P. Kant (A.M.)…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. M/S Royal Touch Fablon Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

ITAT/132/2025HC Calcutta03 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…a Precedence value ? f) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law by not considering the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Pr. CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj, reported in (2022) 139 Taxmann.com 352 (Cal)/(2022) 446 ITR 56 (Cal) wherein the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta laid down guidelines on the manner in which the allegation against the assessee has to be considered ? g) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law by not 3 considering the principle…

Yashwant Raj Lalchand Bamboli, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-27(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4373/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankaryashwant Raj Lalchand V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Bamboli बनाम 27(3)(5), 4Th Floor, Tower 7, Trimurti Building, 105-A, No. 6, Vashi Station N.G. Acharaya Marg, Complex, Mumbai –400703, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aijpb5149A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala,ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr.DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…r of the assessee. The facts of assessee’s case are identical to above stated cases, since involved same scrip and same assessment year (A.Y-2014-15). 5.4 It is further contended that the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Swati Bajaj (446 ITR 56) had been considered by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT v. Sanjay Kumar Damjibhai Gangani (178 taxmann.com 276) and Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Yogesh Thakkar (ITA no.1605/Mum/2021) and held the long term capital gain as genuine. P a g e | 9 A.Y. 2014-15 Yashwant Raj Lalchand Bamboli, Mumbai 6. We have duly considered t…

Lov Subhash Agrawal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 5177/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5177/MUM/2025 (A.Y: 2013-14) Lov Subhash Agrawal Vs. ITO 301/302, Regency Avenue, North Piramal Chambers, Morarjee Avenue Road, Santacruz West, Mills Compound, Next to Mumbai-400 054 Bharatmata Cinema Hall, PAN: ABWPA4329D Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by Shri Vinay Kawadia, Ld. AR Department Represented by Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR. Date of conclusion of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.12.2025…

Cosmos Engitech Private Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1466/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarcosmos Engitech Private Ltd., The Assistant Vs. Plot No.85/2, Cosmos House, Commissioner Padra Road, Atladara, Of Income Tax, Vadodara-380015. Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara. [Pan :Aaacc7647 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…e High Court of Calcutta in the case Swati Bajaj, Dinesh Kumar Bansal (HUF), Suraj Sahana, Tapati Sahana, Souvik Sahana, Mukta Agarwal, Babita Agarwal, Neetu Agarwal, Nand Kishore Agarwala, Rajesh Jhunjhunwala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, [(2022) 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta)] dated 14.06.2022 on the issue of cross examination has observed as under: -Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Kishanlal Agarwalla Versus Collector of Land customs. This decision was pressed into service that as long as the party charged has a fall and reasonable opportunity to see, commen…

Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur vs. Rahul Kathuria, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 152/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

…arbitrary, bad in law, hence, liable to be deleted. 9. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the findings of the sub-ordinate authorities and placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj, [2022] 446 ITR 56 (Cal) a/w. other decisions as appearing in her written submission dated 04.11.2025 which is placed on record and duly considered herein. 10. We have carefully considered all the documents/materials on record, heard the parties herein and have analyzed the facts and circumstances in 18 ITO/ITO-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) Vs. Rahul Kathuria ITA Nos. 151 &…

Income Tax Officer, Raipur vs. Rahul Kathuria, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 151/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

…arbitrary, bad in law, hence, liable to be deleted. 9. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the findings of the sub-ordinate authorities and placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj, [2022] 446 ITR 56 (Cal) a/w. other decisions as appearing in her written submission dated 04.11.2025 which is placed on record and duly considered herein. 10. We have carefully considered all the documents/materials on record, heard the parties herein and have analyzed the facts and circumstances in 18 ITO/ITO-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) Vs. Rahul Kathuria ITA Nos. 151 &…

A. T. Invofin Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 26, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1883/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2013-14] A.T. Invofin India Private DCIT, Central Cirlce-26, Limited, A-60 Naraina Income Tax Office, Jhandewalan Industrial Area-1, Vs Extn., Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110028 PAN-AAACA8248B Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Shri Sumit Lachandani, Adv. and Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue by Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM, This appeal has…

ITO-34(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Haresh S Jhaveri HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5481/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosaina.Ys: 2013-14

Section 147Section 250Section 69C

…evice to create desired loss and profit. 3 Haresh S Jhaveri HUF. Mumbai. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is justified in ignoring the decision pronounced in the case of PCIT Vs. Swati Bajaj (2022) 139 Taxmann.com 352( Calcutta H.C), wherein it was held that the tax authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the realities and the matter has to be considered by applying test of human probabilities and further coming to a conclusion only on the basis of the arguments advanced by the assessee? 4. The appellant craves t…

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and cross-objection of Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1445/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., B-94, Tax, Circle 4(2), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 Pan :Aadcc0273D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. CDS Infra Projects Ltd., B-94, Tax, Circle 4(2), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 PAN :AADCC0273D (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross-Objection No.148/Del/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.1445/Del/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. CDS Infra Projects Ltd., B- Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 94, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase- Circle 4(2), II, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 PA…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Vijeta Lodha, Jaipur

58. As a result, the impugned order by Learned CIT(A) deleting the

ITA 390/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A. (through V.C.)For Respondent: None
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"A-Bench" JAIPUR श्री गगन गोयल, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री नरेन्द्र कुमार, न्यायिक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No. 390/JPR/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2015-16 The JCIT (OSD), Jaipur. बनाम Vs. Vijeta Lodha A-8, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.AEIPJ6235J अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A. (through V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: None सुनवाई की तारीख…

Smt. Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 344/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…he Act should not be allowed because share transactions were bogus as company "C" whose shares were allegedly purchased was a penny stock. Useful reference may also be made to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj, 446 ITR 56 (Cal.) wherein it was held that where assessee earned LTCG on sale of shares and AO denied said claim and ITA Nos.343 & 344/SRT/2025/AY 2018-19 Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth made additions u/s 68 of the Act on ground that assessee invested in shares of penny stock companies which provided bogus LTCG, since assessee failed to establish genuineness…

Gautam Pravinchandra Sheth HUF, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 343/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…he Act should not be allowed because share transactions were bogus as company "C" whose shares were allegedly purchased was a penny stock. Useful reference may also be made to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj, 446 ITR 56 (Cal.) wherein it was held that where assessee earned LTCG on sale of shares and AO denied said claim and ITA Nos.343 & 344/SRT/2025/AY 2018-19 Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth made additions u/s 68 of the Act on ground that assessee invested in shares of penny stock companies which provided bogus LTCG, since assessee failed to establish genuineness…