“bogus LTCG”

Chitra Avdhesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 33 (1) (3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed on the report, without further corroboration on the basis of cogent material, does not justify his conclusion that the transaction ... entry providers, who accepted that both M/s Esteem Bio and M/s Turbotech are Penny Stock companies and the scrips have been used to provide bogus LTCG to various 8 beneficiaries. Reliance was placed on various statements, like of Sh, Nikhil Jain, Sh. Sanjay Vora, Sh. Rakesh Somani, Sh. Anil Kumar

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai vs. Gordhanbhai Govindbhai Kakadiya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeacit-23(1), Mumbai Vs Gordhanbhai Govindbhai Kakadiya Room No.511, 5Th Floor Bc-2010, G Block Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Agypk2399A Appellant Respondent

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Jayshree Haresh Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 19(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA No.4206/Mum/2025 Jayshree Haresh Shah 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return u/sec

Nayna Mukesh Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ms. Nayna Mukesh Shah, Dcit, Circle 41(2)(1), 14E, Konark Darshan, Kautilya Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Jain Mandir Road, Sarvodaya Nagar, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mulund (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400080 Mumbai – 400051. Pan: Aoqps4652E (Appellant) (Respondent) :

Assessing Officer (‘AO’ for short) sought for details pertaining to the said transaction alleged to be a penny scrip for the purpose of availing bogus LTCG u/s 10(38) of the Act as exempt in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.1 ... case pursuant to the information received from ADIT (Inv.), Unit-8(2), Mumbai that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of availing bogus LTCG by transacting in the said penny scrip. It is further observed that the assessee had purchased 50,000 shares of the scrip for a meagre

Sheetal Rajeev Gadre, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Jain was discovered to be operating with his several associates to rig the stock market and to provide accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG, bogus short term loss/ gain to various beneficiaries who intended to bring their unaccounted income into their books of account without paying taxes

ITO 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ska Sales Private Limited, Mumbai

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SKA

Ska Sales Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officsr, Ward 13(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA No.5527&5967/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL

Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tejprakash Sohan Lal Dangi, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

assessee on account of addition made u/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.7,47,083/- towards commission paid for obtaining bogus LTCG entries. vi. The Ld. CIT(A) wrongly relied upon the ITAT decision in Chirag Tejprakash Dangi, ignoring that each case of penny stock transaction must

Durga Vijaykumar Lakhani, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT 27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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.

Based on such information, the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) reopened the assessment, as, according to him the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus LTCG from sale of scrip of Ojas Asset, a penny stock company. He further found that during the year under consideration, the assessee had traded

ACIT, Mumbai City vs. Shri Bishan Jugraj Jain, Mumbai City

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Shri Bishan Jugraj Jain, Room No.640, 301/302, Vaastu Park – A Wing, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Link Road, Malad (West), Churchgate, Mumbai- 400064 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Afgpj7399A (Appellant) (Respondent) :

found that assessee had dealt in the alleged penny scrip of Ojas Assets & Reconstruction Co. Ltd. which had manipulated the scrips for providing bogus LTCG to various beneficiaries including the assessee. The Ld. DR further contended that the assessee had challenged the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act stating ... incriminating material found or seized during the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act where the assessee’s involvement in availing bogus LTCG is not established. The Ld. CIT(A) had relied on various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts wherein it has been held that