“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

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

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

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

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

Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta बिधम/ Ito-31(2)(4) 1501, Anmol Enclave, Opp Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C- Vs. Patel Auto, Goregaon West, 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400062. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adlpg0969J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri Amit Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 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 18.08.2021 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.98,81,550/- 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.1,97,631/- As Commission For Arranging The Bogus Ltcg (2% Of Commission) U/S 69C Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri AmitFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

thus denying deduction u/s 10(38) of the Act as well as upholding addition of Rs.1,97,631/- as commission for arranging the bogus LTCG (2% of commission) u/s 69C of the Act. 2 A.Y. 2014-15 Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta 3. Brief facts are that the assessee ... 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 assessee. Thereafter, he discussed about search conducted in the case of Shri Anuj Agarwal (director of M/s. Korp Securities Ltd. and two other

Naz Shazia, Moradabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1831/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnaz Shazia, Vs. Ito, Anwar House, Ground Ward-1(1), Floor, Pandit Nagla Mini Moradabad Bye Pass Road, Moradabad Pan: Bbwps217R Assessee By : Shri V. K. Tulsian, Ca Revenue By: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Tulsian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 69A

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has passed some orders on the issue of manipulation of share market for providing accommodation entry of bogus LTCG, SEBI considering the inputs form Income Tax Department as well as from its own surveillance system and that of the stock exchanges has taken ... 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

Atmiben Aliptkumar Doshi, Sabarkantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sk Ward-3, Himatnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 520/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Investigation Wing of the Kolkata and as to what documents were in the possession of the Assessing Officer to establish the allegation of bogus LTCG claim. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has rightly purchased the scrip of M/s. Kappac Pharma Limited and the purchase itself

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Ritesh Jain, Indore

ITA 794/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

even books of accounts. The assessee has only managed such entries in the guise of unsecured loans. These companies also find place in the bogus LTCG scam report sent by the Page 46 of 116 ITANo.794/Ind/2018 & IT(SS)A No.14 & 07/Ind/2022 Ritesh Jain & M.P. Agro Nutri Food Ltd. department

M/S. Trinity Global Enterprises Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2122/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

aside.” Pratik Suryakant Shah Vs. ITO in ITA No. 810/Ahd./2015 dated 21.10.2016 (Ahd. ITAT) “In this case also there is a issue of bogus LTCG. In this case, on the basis of statement of broker case was re-opened U/s. 148. Hon'ble Tribunal Held that since the statement

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

companies for providing accommodation entry in different forms such bogus long term capital gain/loss etc. He also explained the modus operandi of pre-arranged bogus LTCG 11 I.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited transactions. The AO further observed that statement of Sri Amit Singh

Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

companies for providing accommodation entry in different forms such bogus long term capital gain/loss etc. He also explained the modus operandi of pre-arranged bogus LTCG transactions. The AO further observed that statement of Sri Amit Singh was recorded on oath on 22.12.2015 who in reply to Question No.5 accepted

Shri Balkrishna Gajanan Thopte, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan

ITA 3380/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

this penny stock is controlled by a group of people viz promoter/operator/brokers. All purchases of shares were arranged by them on assurance of booking bogus LTCG in favour of the assessee. It is fact and evidence from the statement of several persons recorded u/s 131 that they have not only

Reena Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 503/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

transactions tax has been paid. In the case of assessee, information was received by the AO that the assessee had received accommodation entry of bogus LTCG and on a perusal of ITBA data, it was revealed that the assessee has received accommodation entry to the tune

Bharatkumar Gangaram Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

entire report of the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata. The main gist of the show cause notice was in respect of assessee’s entry of bogus LTCG of Rs.51,34,778/- claimed under Section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer pointed out from the Investigation Wing report that shares ... entering unaccounted cash of beneficiaries into regular books of account. The Assessing Officer also pointed out the brokers who are earning commission and providing bogus LTCG to the beneficiaries namely SMC Global Securities Limited, Anand Rathi Share & Stock Broker Limited , Religare Securities Limited, Destiny Securities Limited, Madhya Pradesh Stock Exchange

Naz Shazia, Moradabad vs. ITO-17(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2170/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2170/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Naz Shazia बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer- Anwar House, Ground 17(2)(4) Vs. Floor, Pandit Nagla Mini 1St Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Bye Pass Road, Pandit M. K. Road, Mumbai- Nagla, Moradabad, Uttar 400020. Pradesh-244001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbwps2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2023 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 03.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,94,05,886/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Being The Amount Of Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) On Transfer Of Shares In M/S. Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Ltd. (Hereinafter “M/S. Esteem Bio”) Claimed As Exempt Income U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr

Section 10(38)Section 2Section 68

made additions of the entire sale proceeds of shares as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act, alleging that the appellant has arranged bogus LTCG by trading in penny stock companies in his name by erroneously relying on (i) investigation report of directorate of investigation wing, Kolkata; (ii) alleged bogus

Sunil Ghorawat, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-9(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6382/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmash. Sunil Ghorawat, Vs. Acit, G-73, 2Nd Floor, Lajpat Circle-9(2), Nagar-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acspg7932M

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

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

A.Ammaji, Visakhapatnam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, MA filed assessee is allowed and the appeals of

ITA 98/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 68Section 69C

supra), the Hon’ble ITAT has held that the assessee is not involved in any manipulation of stock prices for the purpose of earning bogus LTCG and thereby allowed the Ground No.2 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 97/Viz/2020 and ITA No.98/Viz/2020. The Ld. AR further mentioned that vide

A Harshita, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, MA filed assessee is allowed and the appeals of

ITA 97/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 68Section 69C

Kishansing Pahadsingh Parmar (HUF), Malad (West) vs. The Income Tax Officer-30 (2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2440/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2440/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kishansing Pahadsingh बिधम/ Ito-30(2)(1) Parmar (Huf) C-13 Pratyakshakar Vs. Flat No.801, Shreenath Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Apartment A-Wing, J.P. Complex, Bandra East, Cross Lane, Himanshurai Mumbai-400051. Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadhk9023N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain/Shri Kunal Lunawat Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.29,77,009/- & Rs.89,310/- U/S 69C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain/ShriFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 69C

Intech was a penny-stock. The AO in the assessment order has discussed the general modus operandi resorted by the players involved in providing bogus LTCG for beneficiaries like assessee in detail and acknowledged that assessee filed documents to support the 3 A.Y. 2011-12 Kishansing Pahadsingh Parmar (HUF) purchase/sale

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1.1. Raipur, Raipur vs. Renu Behl, Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 289/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.289/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 147Section 148Section 268ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c ) which has direct nexus with the evasion of tax emerged out of claim of bogus LTCG on penny stock by not following the CBDT, New Delhi's Circular No.23 dated 06.09.2019 wherein it has been decided by the Board that notwithstanding

Shri Rajender Agarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-5, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2631/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

found that SMC Global Securities Ltd. the share broker of assessee has been found to be involved in· the activity providing accommodation entries of bogus LTCG/ Loss. During survey' conducted by the department, the regional office Delhi and Many sub brokers were found to be involved in the syndicate ... providing accommodation: entries ' of Bogus LTCG Loss. Even the cash of Rs. 90 lacs was found and seized from one sub broker Shri Pawan Kumar Kayan. Many sub brokers of this 'broking house ·has accepted in the statement on oath recorded, to be actively involved in providing the entry

Smt.Tejal Jugal Kishore, Satna vs. Princpal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 16/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sharvan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

buyers and in what rate these were purchased has not been enquired by the AO.  The information received by the Department with regard to bogus LTCG was not enquired into by the Assessing Officer.  The shares namely Comfort Fincap Ltd. has been found to be a penny stock involved ... bogus LTCG. 3 Tejal Jugal Kishore  The Assessing Officer has not conducted due enquiries with regard to the sale of shares transaction. 7. Against in these allegations/observations of the ld. Pr.CIT the factual matrix available on the record has been examined diligently. It reveals  The AO has issued notice

Hanuman Khedaria HUF, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward 2, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 275/CTK/2023[ASST. YEAR 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2023

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-2, Rourkela. C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Market, Market, Kachery Road, Rourkela. Kachery Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca .R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/12 12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr

Section 131

shares of penny stock by ignoring the admission by their group before the Income Tax Authority that complete tax would be paid on the bogus LTCG claimed by the group subsequent to survey operation under Section 133A? II) Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal of the revenue

Nahta Trading Co., Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

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

ITA 449/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv. )For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 234A

finalized by AO, vide order dated 18.10.2018 wherein an addition of Rs. 16,69,950/- has been made on account of bogus LTCG. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal against the said order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. The grounds of appeal are adjudicated as under: 5.6 Ground ... escaped assessment. In this case, AO had prima facie evidence in the form of information from DIT(Inv.), Kolkata, that the appellant had obtained bogus LTCG. It may be the case that the appellant has received such bogus LTCG over many assessment years. Therefore, there is no merit