← All Phrases

“bogus LTCG”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68806 judgments

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

Leading authorities on bogus LTCG

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.

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.

5. PCIT v. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court
392 ITR 444 · 2017 · High Court
111
citing judgments

For valid initiation of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer must possess tangible material and apply independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. Reassessment cannot be based on mere borrowed satisfaction or unverified information without proper scrutiny.

Suman Poddar v. ITO
423 ITR 480 · 2020 · High Court
84
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's detailed findings regarding bogus long-term capital gains from penny stock transactions, established through objective examination of facts and circumstantial evidence, should not be overturned by appellate authorities without a thorough investigation or fresh inquiry.

CIT-I v. Maheshchandra G. Vakil
40 Taxmann.com 326 · 2013 · High Court
69
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer is not justified in treating capital gain from the sale of shares as unexplained cash credit when the assessee proves the genuineness of share transactions with contract notes, broker's bank statements, DMAT accounts, and stock exchange abstracts.

6. CIT v. Jasvinder Kaur
54 Taxmann.com 10 · 2015 · High Court
57
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must provide the assessee with contrary material if they dispute the genuineness of long-term capital gains claimed under section 10(38). The onus is on the revenue to prove the transaction is a colourable device.

PCIT v. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar
130 Taxmann.com 177 · 2021 · Supreme Court
56
citing judgments

An assessment or reassessment order is considered bad in law and without legal sanction if its completion is not in accordance with prescribed legal procedures or timelines.

Judgments citing bogus LTCG

ITO, Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Laxmilal Sethia, Mumbai

In the result, both, appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 588/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Laxmilal Sethia, Assessee in personFor Respondent: Shri. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

Officer in treating the long-term capital gain derived by the appellant on sale of shares of NCL Research and Financial Services Limited as bogus LTCG cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer treating the amount of Rs. 9,47,177/- as unexplained cash credits

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Naresh Manakchand Jain, Prabhadevi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1604/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Ld. D.R
Section 153ASection 201Section 250

clinching evidences in support of the statement of the assessee that he was involved in front running and manipulation of scrip to accommodate bogus LTCG. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee however responded that those stamp papers were related to a film project that was to be produced by Shri ... property by Mono Type India Ltd. from Cosmos Infrastructure Ltd. and thus is was not even remotely connected with the allegation of bogus LTCG. Regarding pages 85 to 41 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee responded that same were official documents for allotment of the shares by M/s 52 Weeks

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Naresh Manakchand Jain, Prabhadevi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1581/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Ld. D.R
Section 153ASection 201Section 250

clinching evidences in support of the statement of the assessee that he was involved in front running and manipulation of scrip to accommodate bogus LTCG. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee however responded that those stamp papers were related to a film project that was to be produced by Shri ... property by Mono Type India Ltd. from Cosmos Infrastructure Ltd. and thus is was not even remotely connected with the allegation of bogus LTCG. Regarding pages 85 to 41 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee responded that same were official documents for allotment of the shares by M/s 52 Weeks

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Naresh Manakchand Jain, Prabhadevi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1580/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Ld. D.R
Section 153ASection 201Section 250

clinching evidences in support of the statement of the assessee that he was involved in front running and manipulation of scrip to accommodate bogus LTCG. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee however responded that those stamp papers were related to a film project that was to be produced by Shri ... property by Mono Type India Ltd. from Cosmos Infrastructure Ltd. and thus is was not even remotely connected with the allegation of bogus LTCG. Regarding pages 85 to 41 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee responded that same were official documents for allotment of the shares by M/s 52 Weeks

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Naresh Manakchand Jain, Prabhadevi Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1579/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Ld. D.R
Section 153ASection 201Section 250

clinching evidences in support of the statement of the assessee that he was involved in front running and manipulation of scrip to accommodate bogus LTCG. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee however responded that those stamp papers were related to a film project that was to be produced by Shri ... property by Mono Type India Ltd. from Cosmos Infrastructure Ltd. and thus is was not even remotely connected with the allegation of bogus LTCG. Regarding pages 85 to 41 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee responded that same were official documents for allotment of the shares by M/s 52 Weeks

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), Mumbai., Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Naresh Manakchand Jain, Prabhadevi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1578/MUM/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Ld. D.R
Section 153ASection 201Section 250

clinching evidences in support of the statement of the assessee that he was involved in front running and manipulation of scrip to accommodate bogus LTCG. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee however responded that those stamp papers were related to a film project that was to be produced by Shri ... property by Mono Type India Ltd. from Cosmos Infrastructure Ltd. and thus is was not even remotely connected with the allegation of bogus LTCG. Regarding pages 85 to 41 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee responded that same were official documents for allotment of the shares by M/s 52 Weeks

Rose Serviced Apartments (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 4041/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

ITO Ward - 28(4), New Delhi vs. Renu Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5155/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.5155/िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2015-16) Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(4), R. No. 1211, E-2 Block, 12Th Floor, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Civic Center, Jln Marg, Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Renu Gupta, R/O. B-393, New Friends Colony, New Delhi 110025 ....."ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Afupg-6910-N Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, Chartered Accountant Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenueis Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 05.03.2019, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) In Deleting Addition Of Rs.1,30,83,424/-Made By Assessing Officer (Ao) Disallowing Assessee’S Claim Of Exemption Of Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) U/S. 10(38) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

appeal before the Tribunal against findings of the First Appellate Authority in deleting addition of Rs.1,30,83,424/- alleged to be bogus LTCG entry provided by operator to the assessee. The undisputed facts are, the assessee had acquired 1,50,000 shares of M/s. Eins Edutech Ltd. in July

Vertool Consultancy LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1131/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 132Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

accommodation entries and commission earned thereon) along with incriminating digital as well as documentary evidences. Clandestine record of unaccounted cash, synchronized trading, proving bogus LTCG in various BSE listed scrips and transport of such cash through angadiyas was found to be maintained in secret Tally Data file with company name ... synchronized trading in shares of various listed companies, because it was only through synchronized trading that the sellers were ensured accommodation entry of bogus LTCG against cash and the buyers were ensured delivery of cash against such pre-determined purchase of shares. The buy and sell parties were well planned

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Manish Uppal, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3061/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

1 DCIT v. Manish Uppal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY

Sandhya Goel H.No.101217, Huda, Jagadhri, Haryana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Panchkula, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/CHANDI/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: ShriSudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

noticed that the case was reopened u/s 148 on the basis of information received from the DDIT- Rohtak, that you had claimed bogus LTCG exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act for F.Y. 2015-16 on sale of shares of INDUSIND Bank amounting to Rs.48,54,326/-. As per information

Sunita Sarda, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 71(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansunita Sarda, Vs. Acit, Circle 71 (1), 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanps7143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 06.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,000/-. The Department Has Received Information From Office Of Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (3), New Delhi On 06.03.2018 That The Assessee Has Taken Bogus Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.17,25,000/- During Fy 2010-11 By Trading In The Penny Scrip I.E. M/S. Global Capital

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Mangla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

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 ... record by the Ld. AO vide the impugned Assessment order dated 13.12.2018 that the Appellant had given cash for conversion via accommodation entries into bogus LTCG as alleged in Para 6.1 of the said order. 16. The as demonstrated supra, the mandatory jurisdictional facts being absent, makes the impugned order

Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 229/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

information. 5. The case has been brought under scrutiny assessment on mere information which was received from DDIT (Inv.) Unit Kolkata in respect of bogus LTCG claimed by the assessee on sale of penny stock script. 6. The assessee had submitted to Ld. AO all documents pertaining to sale ... issuing notice u/s 142(1) dated 29/09/2020 based on some information received from DDIT(Inv.), Kolkata that during investigation carried out in connection with bogus LTCG claimed on penny stocks, it was found that the assessee had also obtained such accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG of Rs.60

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Delhi vs. Artistic Finance Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Officer completed the assessment on 25.11.2019 and made the following additions :- i) Rs.9,60,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of bogus LTCG; ii) Rs.15,48,000/- (Rs.1,48,000/- cash deposit and Rs.14,00,000/- received by cheque) as unexplained cash credit under Section ... Delhi) has found that once the addition made on account of original reasons recorded (in this case, the addition on account of alleged bogus LTCG is deleted, the other two additions, which were not part of original reasons recorded, cannot be sustained. The learned 39 Accountant Member, by his dissenting

Smt Nirakumari Virendra Bajaj, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-17(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6177/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Samaksh Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S. Samaksh Holdings Pvt. Acit, Circle-1(1) Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, 16, Strand Road, Diamond Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, Heritage, 14Th Floor, West Bengal Vs. Room No- 1402, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck2106P Assessee By : Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishak Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Income Tax Act The 40 had issued notice u/s.148 of the Act after receiving information from the investigation wing that these parties are giving bogus LTCG and these parties are only paper companies. Hence, the AO has rightly assumed the jurisdiction and hence the assumption of the jurisdiction is fully ... Rose Valley Trade Links. The AO has clearly made out the case that all these four companies are paper companies and are giving bogus LTCG /credits in garb of cash. The AO pointed out that Shri Ashok Gupta properiter of M/s. Nano Traders is a non-filler and even

Karuna Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 2(1), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 250Section 250(6)

country. During the searches & as per the information made public by the SEBI, it is discovered that various syndicates have arranged accommodation entry of bogus LTCG, Bogus STCG, Bogus Long/short term Capital Loss through trading of shares of Penny Stocks. The modus operandi found is that the investors/beneficiaries hold these ... LTCG Claimed exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act) and Rs. 401680/- as commission paid to arrange the alleged bogus LTCG. The assessee being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order

Bitthal Das Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 1348/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

making the following additions and also penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 were initiated.  Addition on account of bogus LTCG of Rs.5.95,91,797/-on protective basis.  Addition on account of undisclosed capital gain of Rs.3,18,558/-. Against the above assessment order, the assessee ... before the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur which was disposed off vide order dated 26.03.2019 in which addition on account of bogus LTCG has been deleted. After giving effect, the income was assessed at Rs 22,82,260/-. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings

ACIT Circle - 22(1), Mumbai vs. Nilesh Haresh Parwani, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 266/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 250

erred in ignoring the crucial finding of the Investigation carried out by the Kolkata Investigation Directorate and their detailed investigation report titled Project Bogus LTCG/ STCG through BSE listed Penny Stock" and assessee is one of the beneficiary of that dubious scheme. 3. Whether on the facts and in circumstance ... deleting the addition made by the A.O. even though it is well established that the modus operandi of these sham transactions of generating bogus LTCG/ STCG had to be considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, normal course of human conduct and preponderance of probability." 9. "On the facts

General Motors Technical Centre India Pvt Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle, 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansunita Sarda, Vs. Acit, Circle 71 (1), 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanps7143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 06.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,000/-. The Department Has Received Information From Office Of Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (3), New Delhi On 06.03.2018 That The Assessee Has Taken Bogus Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.17,25,000/- During Fy 2010-11 By Trading In The Penny Scrip I.E. M/S. Global Capital

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Mangla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

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 ... record by the Ld. AO vide the impugned Assessment order dated 13.12.2018 that the Appellant had given cash for conversion via accommodation entries into bogus LTCG as alleged in Para 6.1 of the said order. 16. The as demonstrated supra, the mandatory jurisdictional facts being absent, makes the impugned order