“bogus LTCG”

Aditya Baheti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

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

Investigation. The Ld. Assessing officer disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee and added back Rs.2389107/- in the income of the assessee treating as bogus LTCG exemption U/s.111A of the Income Tax Act. The Ld assessing officer also added Rs.48790/- in the income of the assessee as commission paid ... back to appellant in the garb of LTCG. The AO also contended that beneficiaries have paid commission @ 1-2% in cash in lieu of bogus LTCG entry shown from artificial trading in penny stock. Thus, the AO added Rs. 23,89,107/- to total income of assessee under section

Tara Soni, Dausa vs. ITO Ward, Dausa

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as in the case with al such penny stocks involving accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission is presumed @ 5% of the quantum amount of Rs.5,42,187/-. The amount ... Page 20) concluded that EEL is a penny stock and that its price was rigged by operators for giving accommodation entries in form of bogus LTCG or STCL to various assessees. In view of above it is submitted that just because both the charts are having same patterns , EEL cannot

Nathu Lal Jain HUF, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

hearing assessment order was passed thereby making additions under section 68 of the Income Tax Act by holding appellant to be beneficiary of Bogus LTCG. 2.2 Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) but remained unsuccessful. 2.3 Against this order of ld. CIT(A), the Appellant ... evidence against the assessee brought on. record by the Id. A.O to hold that the assessee introduced its own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. Once the assessee has furnished all evidences in support of the genuineness of the On transactions, the onus to disprove the same

Smt. Lakshmi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Goyal Vegoils Limited, Kasar, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle -2, Kota

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

cannot be cited as a basis to turn a blind eye to the evidence. Though, the findings were in respect of bogus LTCG from penny stocks, the central spirit was the same, i.e. the finding is unsupported by material on record and is purely an assumption based on conjecture