“bogus LTCG”

Manish Mahipatrai Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeal), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.867/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Manish Mahipatrai Shah बिधम/ Cit(A)/Nfac 404, Commerce House, Mumbai. Vs. Nagindas Master Road Fort, Mumbai-400023. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asfps9884D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Disallowing The Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Claimed By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Shares M/S. Sunrise Asian Limited (Hereafter “M/S. Sunrise”) Of Rs.11,89,44,328/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). & Thus Denying Deduction U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding Addition Of Rs.59,47,261/- As Commission For Arranging The Bogus Ltcg (5% Of Commission) U/S 69C Of The Act.

thus denying deduction u/s 10(38) of the Act as well as upholding addition of Rs.59,47,261/- as commission for arranging the bogus LTCG (5% of commission) u/s 69C of the Act. 2 A.Y. 2014-15 Manish Mahipatrai Shah 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual ... Sunrise and the Investigation report to opine that M/s. Sunrise was a penny stock, which was used by unscrupulous entry operators for providing bogus LTCG to beneficiaries like assessee. The AO noted that M/s. Santoshima was incorporated on 03.03.21992 and its name got changed from M/s Santoshima Lease Finance & Investment

Udaykumar Prabhudas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 29(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudaykumar Prabhudas Shah V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 29(3)(1) Kautilya Bhavan 1601 Moksh Mahal Bandra Kurla Complex P.K. Road, Sarvodaynagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mulund, Mumbai – 400080 Pan: Alyps8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

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 ... which could indicate that assessee was also a part or connected to the alleged racket of providing accommodation entry of bogus LTCG nor any proof of any agreement between the assessee and other persons mentioned in the report has been found. So the basis of addition is primarily

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Grover 5. The case has been brought under scrutiny assessment based the on the information received from DDIT (Inv.) Unit Kolkata in respect of bogus LTCG claimed by the assessee on sale of penny stock script. The assessee had submitted before the Assessing Officer all the documents pertaining to sale ... latest judgment dated 10th April, 2017 [ITA No.18/2017] in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs. PCIT-1, Nagpur on the issue of Bogus LTCG from Penny stocks had held as under “The assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain how the shares in an unknown company worth Rs.5

Komal Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 645/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Komal Agarwal बिधम / Dcit, Central Circle 7(3) 203, Ugam, N.S Road No.9, Room No 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Ville Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parle (W), Mumbai-400097 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं/.जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ahwpr9295B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

thereafter, the AO discussed the findings of the investigation wing (Investigation Wing of Kolkata) wherein “Modus Operandi” of unscrupulous entry providers who provide bogus LTCG to beneficiaries were narrated, and he further noted the modus adopted by such entry providers who facilitate to beneficiary (like assessee) to purchase first ... SEBI decision in some cases (general report & not concerning assessee) wherein the issue of manipulation of share market for providing accommodation entries of bogus LTCG has been reported and noted that certain scrip has been suspended (not that of M/s. Global) by SEBI from trading. The AO also referred

Aakruti Ketan Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-35(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

affairs of Sunrise Asian Limited? Ans Sir the shares of Sunrise Asian Limited has been used for providing bogus long term accommodation entries of bogus LTCG I am the operator of the scheme and have managed the affairs of Sunrise Asian Limited Q.22 Please explain in detail the entire modus ... Isted on BSE however the trading in the scripts was suspended by BSE I had acquired this company for providing accommodation entries of bogus LTCG After the acquisition I got the company suspension revoked Thereafter I managed the amalgamation of two companies with Sunrise Asian Limited viz (1) M/s Santoshima

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Cheryl Advisory Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

Clandestine record of unaccounted cash, synchronized documentary evidences Clandestine record of unaccounted cash, synchronized documentary evidences Clandestine record of unaccounted cash, synchronized trading, proving bogus LTCG i trading, proving bogus LTCG in various BSE listed scrips and transport of such n various BSE listed scrips and transport of such cash ... Further he elaborates in gen Further he elaborates in general, the entire scam scheme of penny eral, the entire scam scheme of penny stock- bogus LTCG by discussing in detail about the role played by bogus LTCG by discussing in detail about the role played by bogus LTCG by discussing

Smt. Hema Ramesh Jain, Thane vs. ITO Ward - 1(5), Kalyan

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2966/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Hema Ramesh Jain बिधम/ Ito, Ward-1(5) 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Flat No. 1501, Bldg 2-Greens, Vs. Vasant Lawns, Voltas Wayale Nagar, Compound, Nr Majiwada Khadakpada, Kalyan Flyover, Thane (West)- (W), Maharashtra- 400601. 421301. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpj0407L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ajay R. Singh Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 08.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Disallowance Made By Ao Regarding The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Of Rs.23,37,135/- & Taxing The Entire Sale Consideration Of Rs.25,12,020/- On Sale Of Shares Of M/S. Sunrise Asian Ltd. (Hereinafter “M/S. Sunrise”).

unaccounted money by way of transacting in penny- 3 A.Y. 2014-15 Smt. Hema Ramesh Jain stock (M/s. Sunrise in this case) and claimed bogus LTCG. The AO referred to the statement given by Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein he admitted (during ... scam for converting their black money into white. Drawing our attention to the contents/modus-operandi resorted to by entry-operators for providing for providing bogus LTCG as stated in the investigation report (as noted by AO in the assessment order), the Ld. DR submitted that the AO rightly disbelieved the bogus

Vineet Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent . Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

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 and thus may kindly be deleted. On the other hand, Ld DR objected to the above submissions and prayed that both the bogus LTCG and commissions paid on the same may be sustained. 26. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we already held that the transaction

Vineeet Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

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 and thus may kindly be deleted. On the other hand, Ld DR objected to the above submissions and prayed that both the bogus LTCG and commissions paid on the same may be sustained. 26. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we already held that the transaction