← All Phrases

“bogus long term capital gain”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68695 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus long term capital gain is PCIT v. Swati Bajaj (139 Taxmann.com 352), cited in 443 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus long term capital gain

PCIT v. Swati Bajaj
139 Taxmann.com 352 · 2022 · High Court
443
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar
54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court
279
citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. PCIT-1, Nagpur
89 Taxmann.com 196 · 2018 · High Court
251
citing judgments

The exemption for long-term capital gains on share transactions is unavailable if the assessee fails to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of gains arising from dubious share transactions designed to convert unaccounted income into tax-exempt capital gains. Courts will uphold an assessment based on the Revenue's evidence of price rigging or penny stock manipulation if the assessee cannot provide cogent evidence for the abnormal rise in share value.

PCIT v. Krishna Devi
126 Taxmann.com 80 · 2021 · High Court
249
citing judgments

The genuineness of share transactions, particularly those generating long-term capital gains, cannot be rejected solely based on general investigation reports, third-party statements, or a mere increase in share price, when the assessee provides comprehensive documentary evidence, without the Revenue bringing substantial evidence to the contrary.

CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal
328 ITR 656 · 2010 · High Court
230
citing judgments

When faced with allegations of bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks, the Assessing Officer must discharge the onus of proving that the assessee's transactions were not genuine. The assessee can rely on the principle of preponderance of probability, and the Revenue must present substantial evidence to establish that the transactions were a colourable device or that the assessee was an entry operator.

Pr.CIT v. Lata Jain
384 ITR 543 · 2016 · High Court
174
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, no additions can be made for assessment years where assessments have already been concluded, unless incriminating material related to undisclosed income for those years is found during the search operation.

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani
69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported
142
citing judgments

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT
6 SOT 247 · 2006 · ITAT
139
citing judgments

The department must substantiate its allegations of a bogus long term capital gain scheme; if not substantiated, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for purported bogus LTCG derived from the purchase/sale of shares cannot be sustained. An assessee's claim for long term capital gains exemption on share transactions should be allowed where documentation supports the transactions.

Judgments citing bogus long term capital gain

Sheetal Sandeep Meher, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward1(2), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1000/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1000/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sheetal Sandeep Meher, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 3Rd Floor, Pitruchaya Jalgaon. Building, Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aqupm5982D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Umashankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 13 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

that the present assessee is involved in penny stock transactions & shown some exempted income u/s 10(38) of the IT Act from bogus long term capital gain. After recording reasons & prior approval from competent authority, notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee requiring him to furnish return of income

ITO-19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Priti Bharat Parekh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 447/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Ito-19(2)(4) Vs. Priti Bharat Parekh 507, 5Th Floor, Piramal 6C Landsend Chs 29 D Chambers, Parel, Dongersey Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Malabar Hill Maharashtra – 400006 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaepp1784C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : B.V. Jhaveri & Ms. Bhargavi Raval Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Nfac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Quashing The Reopening By The Ao With The Opinion That The Reopening Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law Without Appreciating That The Facts On Which The Reopening Was Done Are Not Available By The Ao At The Time Of Original Assessment 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That During The Course Of Investigation, It Was Found That The Scrips In Which The Assessee Traded Is Penny Stock Used For Providing Accommodation Entry Only In Form Of Bogus Ltcg & Stcg & Shared With The Jurisdiction Ao In The Fy 2020-21. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Has Entered

For Appellant: B.V. Jhaveri &For Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

show cause notice the AO had also referred the information received from the Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Kolkatta relating to bogus long term capital gains arisen on sale of these shares. Some of the extract of the decision of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under ... assessing officer on 09.12.2016 wherein the AO has categorically mentioned that information has been received from the Directorate Kolkata about the bogus long term capital gain taken by selling the shares of M/s Shree Shaleen Textiles Ltd. by the assessee during the year under consideration. The ld. Counsel also referred