← 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

Shrirang Govind Phadtare, Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 17/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.17/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shrirang Govind Phadtare, Vs Ito, Ward 10(1), 01 Alephata, Junnar, Pune- Pune 412411 Maharashtra Pan-Aarpp6204E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram
Section 147Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr

Sunita Jajoo, Surat vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(4), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 882/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

brought out the factual scenario to establish machinations of fraudulent, manipulative and deceptive dealings and how the stock exchanges system was misused to generate bogus LTCG. On going through the order, we agree with Mr. Roy Chowdhury that the order of the said assessing officer is a well- reasoned order ... case that assessee took the accommodation entry in penny stock, within a period of two or three months to book bogus LTCG or loss, to defraud the Revenue. The assessee, as on Investor, held the share for long time. Hence the assessee is an Investor and therefore should

Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

ITA 552/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo (Physical Court Hearing) 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat City, Surat-395 002 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलार्थी/Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 882/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Sunita Jajoo 429-432, Golden Point, Near Bsnl Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 [Pan: Aampj 0040 K] बनाम Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Richa Toshniwal. Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23.01.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeals By Separate Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As "Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2024 & 21.04.2023 For Same

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

brought out the factual scenario to establish machinations of fraudulent, manipulative and deceptive dealings and how the stock exchanges system was misused to generate bogus LTCG. On going through the order, we agree with Mr. Roy Chowdhury that the order of the said assessing officer is a well- reasoned order

ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Nilesh Pranlal Saglani, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2059/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Ito-19(2)(4) Nilesh Pranlal Saglani Room No. 507 2/8-10-12, Ground 5Th Floor Vs. Floor, Dadiseth Agiary Piramal Chambers Lane, Kalbadevi Parel, Mumbai Road, Mumbai- 400 012. 400002. Pan : Aayps4855M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Asif KarmaliFor Respondent: Shri Rasik Tanna
Section 253Section 68Section 69C

addition u/s 69C of the L.T. Act of Rs. 2,704/-, being commission paid to entry provider for obtaining of accommodation entries of bogus LTCG/ STCL by trading in penny stock scripts?" 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITA) has erred

Ritesh Bansal, Khajuri Bazar, Indore vs. PCIT, Indore-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. White Church, White Church Road, Residency Area, Indore

ITA 436/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2014-15 Ritesh Bansal, Pr. Cit-1, G-16, Ganesh Complex Indore बनाम/ Khajuri Bazar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Acipb4025C Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Harshit Chowkse, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68Section 69C

Bansal and Shri Ritesh Bansal, he was managing all the share trading. He also accepted that he alongwith his mother and two brother, claimed bogus LTCG of Rs. 7,82,88,917/- for AY 2014-15. Moreover, Shri Manish Bansal admitted that he had payment of 5% of LTCG ... Shri Ritesh Bansal and Shri Rakesh Bansal, was managing share trading and also accepted that he along with his mother and two brothers claimed bogus LTCG of Rs.7,82,88,917/- for A.Y. 2014-15 and also accepted the percentage expenses of such arrangement charged as commission by the intermediaries

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur vs. Nikeshkumar Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 2016/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Yashesh Mehta, CA, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ruled in favour of the assessee. It was observed that M/s. Ice Worth Reality LLP had already been assessed separately, and the alleged bogus LTCG of Rs.60,87,74,856/- was added in its hands. Since the LLP's entire income was subjected to tax at the entity level, taxing ... account of undisclosed income out of benefit taken by the assessee as a partner in M/s Ice Worth Reality LLP, which has claimed bogus LTCG exemption u/s.10(38) of IT Act on sale of penny stock M/s Sun Asian, without appreciating that: (i) The Firm M/s Ice Worth Reality

Neha Global Trends Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-18(1), New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2312/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Deepak Batra, Vs. Dcit, C/O-Ds Legal & Associates, Central Circle, B-50, Lgf, South Extension- Gurgaon Ii, New Delhi Pan: Acrpb9560F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132Section 153A

Further, the AO made addition of Rs. 7,31,870/- on account of bogus LTCG claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs. 14,637/- on account of expenses incurred to avail such bogus LTCG for AY 2017- 18. The detailed facts and basis for making above ... assessment orders has discussed the basis for additions made on account of unaccounted commission income earned by the appellant forarranging accommodation entries of bogus LTCG for various clients against commission @4%. The AO has relied upon certain documents found and seized during the course of search as tabulated vide para

Vishal Kanaiyalal Desai, Bhuj vs. ACIT Circle Gandhidham, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 901/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaअ.आ.न./Ita No.901/Rjt/2024

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69ASection 69C

well as on facts in making addition of Rs. 49,968/- on account of alleged unexplained commission expenditure on account of arranging bogus LTCG from penny stock scrip. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same. 8. Ld. AO erred

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 183/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

reasons recorded as to what was the information or evidence available to the Assessing Officer for forming belief that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG. What was the information available to the Assessing Officer and how he formed the belief of escapement of income is totally missing in the reasons ... recorded. Mere making allegations that the assessee had entered into bogus LTCG transaction without mentioning even as to with which party the assessee entered into the transaction, what was the nature of the transaction and how and on what basis the Assessing Officer formed the belief that the same

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 182/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

reasons recorded as to what was the information or evidence available to the Assessing Officer for forming belief that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG. What was the information available to the Assessing Officer and how he formed the belief of escapement of income is totally missing in the reasons ... recorded. Mere making allegations that the assessee had entered into bogus LTCG transaction without mentioning even as to with which party the assessee entered into the transaction, what was the nature of the transaction and how and on what basis the Assessing Officer formed the belief that the same

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 181/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

reasons recorded as to what was the information or evidence available to the Assessing Officer for forming belief that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG. What was the information available to the Assessing Officer and how he formed the belief of escapement of income is totally missing in the reasons ... recorded. Mere making allegations that the assessee had entered into bogus LTCG transaction without mentioning even as to with which party the assessee entered into the transaction, what was the nature of the transaction and how and on what basis the Assessing Officer formed the belief that the same

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 180/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

reasons recorded as to what was the information or evidence available to the Assessing Officer for forming belief that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG. What was the information available to the Assessing Officer and how he formed the belief of escapement of income is totally missing in the reasons ... recorded. Mere making allegations that the assessee had entered into bogus LTCG transaction without mentioning even as to with which party the assessee entered into the transaction, what was the nature of the transaction and how and on what basis the Assessing Officer formed the belief that the same

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 179/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

reasons recorded as to what was the information or evidence available to the Assessing Officer for forming belief that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG. What was the information available to the Assessing Officer and how he formed the belief of escapement of income is totally missing in the reasons ... recorded. Mere making allegations that the assessee had entered into bogus LTCG transaction without mentioning even as to with which party the assessee entered into the transaction, what was the nature of the transaction and how and on what basis the Assessing Officer formed the belief that the same

DCIT, Circle vs. Vivek Lodha, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department and C

ITA 506/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148oSection 153CSection 253(4)Section 68Section 69C

justified in deleting the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.55,64,473/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of bogus LTCG for acquiring accommodation entries claimed by the assessee as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1752/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1752/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.) ….....Appellant 12Th Floor, Unit 12B, Unimark Asian, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aancs7043M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. C. Jhawer, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rama Choudhary, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13 Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 26.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.19,81,896/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act Based On Information Received Regarding Bogus Ltcg On Sale Of Shares Of Banas Finance Ltd. It Was Alleged That The Assessee Purchased 55,000 Shares For Rs.30,11,800/- & Sold Them For Rs.10,05,950/- Booking A Loss Of Rs.20,05,850/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Concluded

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

declaring total income of Rs.19,81,896/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act based on information received regarding bogus LTCG on sale of shares of Banas Finance Ltd. It was alleged that the assessee purchased 55,000 shares for Rs.30,11,800/- and sold

Shummy Poulose Puthanangady, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 27, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1448/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule – CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL

Umesh P. Mahansaria (HUF), Surat vs. Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle- 1(3), Surat

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

ITA 151/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 151/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Umesh P. Mahansaria (Huf) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- C-501, The Legend, Vastu Gram, Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, बनाम Vesu, Surat-395 007 Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Building, Vs [Pan : Aaahu 6298 L] Adajan, Surat-395 009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत "ायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bandra vs. Godavari Corporation Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the revenue appeals ITA No

ITA 6043/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Santosh Bhansali HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result this appeal is also allowed for withdrawal and treated the same as dismissed

ITA 715/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Saurav Harsh, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

entities involved in the transactions for generating such bogus claims of LTCG. On the basis of information collected during search/survey operations beneficiaries of such bogus LTCG were also identified. The assessee is also one of such beneficiary. The detail of share transaction in case of assessee from penny script during

Santosh Bhansali HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result this appeal is also allowed for withdrawal and treated the same as dismissed

ITA 703/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Saurav Harsh, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

entities involved in the transactions for generating such bogus claims of LTCG. On the basis of information collected during search/survey operations beneficiaries of such bogus LTCG were also identified. The assessee is also one of such beneficiary. The detail of share transaction in case of assessee from penny script during