← All Phrases

“bogus long term capital gain”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68695 judgments

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlate Gyan Prakash Gupta Vs. Ito Through Legal Heir Raj Ward 10(4) Kumari Gupta New Delhi Plot No.6 & 7, Defence Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adupg 2697 N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Investigation made by the Income- tax Department had revealed that the scrip of HPC Biosciences Limited are used to book bogus long term capital gain. 3. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 08.12.2017 made addition of Rs.1 ... Officer [2025] 170 taxmann.com 430 (Delhi-Trib.) held as under:- 4. Heard and perused the record. The main issues involved is alleged bogus long term capital gains claimed by the Assessee in the following scrips: Sr. Scrip LTCG Claimed No. 1. HPC Biosciences Limited. (Scrip Code

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI , JHANDEWALAN vs. KRSKA CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4666/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

found that Asish Begwani and his associates were engaged in facilitating and providing accommodation entries of Loans, Share Capital/ Share Premium Bogus long term capital gain carrying out hawala transaction. From the analysis it was found that the assessee has taken accommodation entries from Maa Sharda Vincm

SMT. SANTOSH BAMALWA,DIBRUGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 348/GTY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarsmt. Santosh Bamalwa Acit, Circle-1 C/O A.K. Varma, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mahalaya Road, Dibrugarh- Milan Nagar, Dibrugarh-786003, 786001, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aedpb9900P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

different and therefore, the decision of the Tribunal is distinguishable on facts. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has arranged a bogus long term capital gain through the broker/operators who were engaged in providing accommodation entries. Therefore the ld. DR submitted that the appeal of the assessee

SARIT GUPTA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(6), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6662/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the NFAC who vide order dated 28-08-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being, aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 3

Achal investment limited is one of the penny stock companies listed with Bombay Stock Exchange was artificially rigged to provide entry of bogus long term capital gain and it was found that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who had sold shares of Achal investment limited for Rs.1 ... availed entry of bogus long term capital gain foe an amount of Rs.1,83,76,703/-. The department initiated the proceedings. The assessee has not furnished required information, order u/s 148A(d) dated 26-07-2022 was passed and notice under section 148 of the Act dated

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

that the Cressanda Solutions Ltd.\nwas in fact Identified by the Bombay Stock Exchange as a penny stock being\nused for obtaining bogus Long Term Capital Gain. NO evidence of actual\nsale except the contract notes Issued by the share broker were produced by\nthe assessee. No question ... Director of M/s Consortium Capital Pvt. Ltd. which is one\nof the entitles utilised for providing entry of bogus long term capital gain of\nM/s CCL International Ltd. who had admitted that he was involved in scam\nof providing bogus long term capital gains through shares of M/s CCL\nInternational

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHANTI DEVI SOMANI, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of revenue as well as cross objections of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2503/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

deletion of addition of Rs.1,67,78,383/- by the ld.CIT(A) as made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus long term capital gain u/s.68 of the Act by denying genuine claim of exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act. CO No.65&63/KOL/2025 5. Facts in brief are that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CHANDU SOMANI, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of revenue as well as cross objections of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2029/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

deletion of addition of Rs.1,67,78,383/- by the ld.CIT(A) as made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus long term capital gain u/s.68 of the Act by denying genuine claim of exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act. CO No.65&63/KOL/2025 5. Facts in brief are that

SHEETAL RAJEEV GADRE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8534/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat
Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 151ASection 68

account without paying taxes. It was found that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries who took accommodation entries and earned bogus Long Term Capital Gain/ Short Term Capital Loss in trading of penny script. OASIS TRADELINK LTD. During the reassessment proceedings the 2 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Asessee didn ... 115BBE of the Act. 9. While making the above addition, the Assessing Officer had reasoned that the Assessee was a beneficiary of bogus long term capital gains transactions and had taken accommodation entries to reintroduce 5 Assessment Year 2018-2019 unaccounted cash into the books of accounts

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(1),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DHARA VARUN SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1964/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

brokers, operators, director of paper companies that had bought these shares, directors of Penny stock companies, all confessed of providing entries of bogus long term capital gain, bogus short term capital loss and bogus business losses through manipulation of stock price on the stock exchange with detailed modus operandi

INCOME TAX OFFICER-16(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TEJPRAKASH SOHAN LAL DANGI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7624/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68Section 69C

nassessee may have incurred commission expenses in getting bogus long term\ncapital gains and accordingly estimated the commission expenses incurred on\nprocuring bogus long term capital gains as Rs. 7 lakhs and assessed the same\nu/s 69C of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition and hence

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

ITA 44/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

information was based on the investigation carried out by Investigation Wing, Kolkata. The assessee is one of the beneficiary who has availed bogus long term capital gain during financial year 2014–15. The assessee is beneficiary of penny scrip namely Premier Capital Services Ltd. and Kailash Auto Finance ... gain. The statement of assessee was recorded during search action wherein they had offered additional income of `. 18.24 crore on account of bogus long term capital gain, however, in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A, the assessee claimed such income as exempt income. Rajesh

DURGA VIJAYKUMAR LAKHANI ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT 27 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5787/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardurga Vijakumar Lakhani Principal Cit-27 Plot No. 117, A-Lane Gokul, Mumbai Vs. Near Sagar Vihar, Sector-8, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aazpl 4339 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.07.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Drew Our Attention To Ground Nos. 1 & 3 & Submitted That The Appeal Can Be Decided On The Limited Issue Of Lack Of Proper Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment. For Deciding This Issue, We May Discuss Few Relevant Facts.

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

KAMALAPAT RATANCHAND CHOPRA,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7880/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151ASection 69C

nthrough sale of shares of M/s Confidence Finance and Trading\nLimited. The script/share of this company was used for\naccommodation entry of bogus long term capital gain, bogus short\nterm capital gains and bogus short term capital loss/bogus business\nloss through trading of shares.\n4.1. Order u/s.148A(d) was passed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 337/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

that the ld. First Appellate Authority had ignored the fact that both the assessees were deliberately trying to evade taxes by showing bogus Long Term Capital Gains and that, as is common in such type of cases, all the documentary evidences would be in order and therefore, while adjudicating ... both the assessees. It was submitted that in all the three cases, the Assessing Officer brought up the issue of alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains only during the course of assessment proceedings but has not referred to any such material found during the course of search which would indicate

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 336/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

that the ld. First Appellate Authority had ignored the fact that both the assessees were deliberately trying to evade taxes by showing bogus Long Term Capital Gains and that, as is common in such type of cases, all the documentary evidences would be in order and therefore, while adjudicating ... both the assessees. It was submitted that in all the three cases, the Assessing Officer brought up the issue of alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains only during the course of assessment proceedings but has not referred to any such material found during the course of search which would indicate

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 334/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

that the ld. First Appellate Authority had ignored the fact that both the assessees were deliberately trying to evade taxes by showing bogus Long Term Capital Gains and that, as is common in such type of cases, all the documentary evidences would be in order and therefore, while adjudicating ... both the assessees. It was submitted that in all the three cases, the Assessing Officer brought up the issue of alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains only during the course of assessment proceedings but has not referred to any such material found during the course of search which would indicate

RAJENDRA P SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 24(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee

ITA 6545/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rajendra P. Shah, Ito, Ward-24(3)(5), Mumbai 402, Anand Enclave Chs, Tps 3, 11Th Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Road, Santacruz (East), Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400055. [Pan No. Aydps7704A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

information that certain search and seizure action was conducted by Investigation Wing wherein certain incrimination material about providing Rajendra P. Shah bogus long term capital gain or short term capital gain or business income was discovered. On the basis of such information, it was discovered that assessee has also traded

ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. DHIRAJ BHAUSAHEB NIKAM, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1375/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(47)

jagged up through cartel of interlinked companies controlled and managed by entry operators for the purpose of providing accommodation entry of 5 bogus long term capital gain. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of exemption

KULDIP SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

long term capital gain/loss for its beneficiaries - According to Assessing Officer, assessee was also a beneficiary of said syndicate as it earned bogus long term capital gain in case of sale of shares of 'S' Ltd. details of which were not reflected in records and, thus, said income escaped assessment

ACIT19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. YOGESHKUMAR PRAVINKUMAR SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 6163/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Respondent: Revenue by
Section 143(3)

account of estimation of commission but sustained the quantum addition made under section 68 for Rs. 68,98,020/- qua the bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). 3. The relief of addition on account of estimated commission does not find justified by the revenue, therefore the revenue is in present

Showing 1–20 of 695 · Page 1 of 35

...