← 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

Pankaj Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 574/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

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

Mr.Bhavin Vaghasia(Legal Heir of Late Kanubhai Vaghasia), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kalyan

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2584/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

admitted position that Sunrise Asian is one of the penny stock companies listed on Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) used for generating bogus LTCG. A perusal of the Assessment Order shows that the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the Investigation Report while making the addition ... have drawn inference on the strength of the statement given by the Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt to the effect that the beneficiaries of bogus LTCG were allotted shares of Conart Traders Limited on preferential basis in 2011-12. Perusal of material placed on record shows that the Assessee did acquire

Shri Vipulbhai Haribhai Marvaniya, Junagadh vs. The ITO Ward-2, Junagadh

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

ITA 48/RJT/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

account of sales of shares of M/s. VAS Infrastructure Ltd. which is a penny stock company and assessee booked bogus LTCG. The Assessing Officer was of the view that since the assessee did not file return of income, the source of investment made in such transaction remained unexplained

Pravina Navin Dedhia, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1701/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Maulik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 147Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1701/Mum/2021

Chetan Dinesh Sheth, Thane vs. ITO, Ward, Thane

Appeal is allowed

ITA 439/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Chetan

Ridhi Bagaria, Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 76/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Keshav Dubey, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kishore Ch. Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

decision in the matter or the general observations based on statements, probabilities,' human behavior and discovery of the modus operandi adopted in earning alleged bogus LTCG and STCG, that have surfaced during investigations, should guide the authorities in arriving at a conclusion as to whether the claim is genuine ... 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

Ruhani Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4(1), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1956/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1956/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ruhani Wadhwa Vs. Ito, C/O. Kapil Goel Ward 41(1), Adv F-26/124 New Delhi Sector 7 Rohini Delhi-110085 Pan : Abypw1171F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

made an addition of Rs. 77,40,656/- with the break up of Rs. 75,02,222/- u/s 68 of the Act as alleged bogus LTCG and Rs. 238,434/- as commission u/s 69C of the Act. It can be appreciated from the record and the order ... that the scrip price movement was mainly on account of manipulation in a pre-arranged synchronized fashion to book accommodation entries in form of Bogus LTCG as well as provide Shortterm Capital loss to a huge no. of beneficiaries. As per records, the assessee never traded in any shares before

Ranjana Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-41(5), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1955/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1955/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ranjana Wadhwa Vs. Ito, C/O. Kapil Goel Ward - 41(1), Adv F-26/124 New Delhi Sector -07 Rohini Delhi-110085 Pan : Abypw1171F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

addition of Rs. 2,09,93,738/- with the break up of Rs. 2,03,63,338/- u/s 68 of the Act as alleged bogus LTCG and Rs. 6,30,400/- as commission u/s 69C of the Act. It can be appreciated from the record and the order ... that the scrip price movement was mainly on account of manipulation in a pre-arranged synchronized fashion to book accommodation entries in form of Bogus LTCG as well as provide Shortterm Capital loss to a huge no. of beneficiaries. ix. The shares were purchased off-market from a Private Party

Lucky Stock Broking P Ltd., Mum vs. ITO-10(2)(2), Mum

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 143(1)

statement given by Shri Ajit Gupta one of the beneficiary in his statement on 16.10.2014 wherein he admitted that he has obtained bogus LTCG. According to the AO, the directorate of investigation has conducted several inquiries and statements were recorded u/s 131/133A of the Act of operator/exit providers about these ... bogus LTCG. And the AO also notes that the SEBI has named Shri Sajjan Kedia to be involved in fraudulent practice in its reports, in the case of M/s. First Financial Service Ltd. vide order dated 19.12.2017. In the light of the above, the AO issued show cause notice

Pawan Gupta, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 193/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.190/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Gupta (Huf) M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aamhr5784E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.191/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aexpg9423L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.192/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Radhika Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aqfpm4577M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.193/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pawan Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg7808B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

company from whom the assessee had claimed to have purchased shares, which, thus revealed a meticulously planned transaction that was carried out to facilitate bogus LTCG on the sale of shares of the aforesaid scrip; (xv). reference of the fact that the sale transaction of the aforesaid 3000 shares ... shares, and considering the totality of the facts involved in the case can safely be held to have only obtained an accommodation entry of bogus LTCG. 17. I, thus, in terms of my aforesaid observations concur with the view taken by the lower authorities and uphold the addition of Rs.5.40

Radhika Gupta, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 192/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.190/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Gupta (Huf) M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aamhr5784E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.191/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aexpg9423L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.192/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Radhika Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aqfpm4577M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.193/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pawan Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg7808B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

company from whom the assessee had claimed to have purchased shares, which, thus revealed a meticulously planned transaction that was carried out to facilitate bogus LTCG on the sale of shares of the aforesaid scrip; (xv). reference of the fact that the sale transaction of the aforesaid 3000 shares ... shares, and considering the totality of the facts involved in the case can safely be held to have only obtained an accommodation entry of bogus LTCG. 17. I, thus, in terms of my aforesaid observations concur with the view taken by the lower authorities and uphold the addition of Rs.5.40

Shri Rahul Gupta, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 191/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.190/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Gupta (Huf) M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aamhr5784E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.191/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aexpg9423L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.192/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Radhika Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aqfpm4577M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.193/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pawan Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg7808B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

company from whom the assessee had claimed to have purchased shares, which, thus revealed a meticulously planned transaction that was carried out to facilitate bogus LTCG on the sale of shares of the aforesaid scrip; (xv). reference of the fact that the sale transaction of the aforesaid 3000 shares ... shares, and considering the totality of the facts involved in the case can safely be held to have only obtained an accommodation entry of bogus LTCG. 17. I, thus, in terms of my aforesaid observations concur with the view taken by the lower authorities and uphold the addition of Rs.5.40

Rahul Gupta(HUF), Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 190/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.190/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Gupta (Huf) M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aamhr5784E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.191/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aexpg9423L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.192/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Radhika Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aqfpm4577M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.193/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pawan Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg7808B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

company from whom the assessee had claimed to have purchased shares, which, thus revealed a meticulously planned transaction that was carried out to facilitate bogus LTCG on the sale of shares of the aforesaid scrip; (xv). reference of the fact that the sale transaction of the aforesaid 3000 shares ... shares, and considering the totality of the facts involved in the case can safely be held to have only obtained an accommodation entry of bogus LTCG. 17. I, thus, in terms of my aforesaid observations concur with the view taken by the lower authorities and uphold the addition of Rs.5.40

Rashi Agrawal, Cuttacki vs. Income Tax Officer, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 56/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Keshav Dubey, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

decision in the matter or the general observations based on statements, probabilities,' human behavior and discovery of the modus operandi adopted in earning alleged bogus LTCG and STCG, that have surfaced during investigations, should guide the authorities in arriving at a conclusion as to whether the claim is genuine ... refuted by any adverse findings or material which could demonstrate involvement of the assessee or collusion with so called accommodation entry providers to obtain bogus LTCG as so alleged by the authorities below. 24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian

Suresh Asrani, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 35(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3868/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133Section 143(3)Section 69A

script where funds were received from Kolkata based company and operated by entry operators. The company provided 3 ITA No. 3868/Del/2019 Suresh Asrani the bogus LTCG through penny stocks in connivance with entry operators and promoters of script. The name of stocks which were used for the purpose of providing ... claiming LTCG at a later stage. The promoters/directors of the companies work hand in glove with the operator to implement this scheme of availing bogus LTCG. ii) The Brokers: They are registered brokers through whom shares are traded both online and off-line. They are fully aware of the nature

DCIT, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Satish Jagannath Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2818/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Krishna Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 158B

remand report that the assessment proceedings u/s 153C was initiated for the reason that the ass tee was found to be indulging in generating bogus LTCG found to be incorrect in view of the satisfaction note recorded for issue of notice u 53C, as reproduced previously. In the remand report

Shri Rupal Jaian, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, (Addl. CIT)
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

Asian Limited. On the basis of information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, SEBI 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 ... unearthed during the course of investigation by the Investigation Wing that the beneficiaries have paid 1% to 2% commission on acquiring accommodation entries for Bogus LTCG. Therefore, the AO added commission paid of Rs. 50,418/- @ 2% of Rs. 25,20,930/- treating the same as undisclosed expenditure for acquiring

Shri Ashnuth Goyal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ward -1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 68

assessment proceedings or by the Ld. CIT(A) in appellate proceedings in support of the conclusion drawn by them that the assessee had earned bogus LTCG in connivance with Shri Jai Kishan Poddar or Sh. Anil Khemka. On the other hand the assessee has filed various documents duly evidencing purchase ... Shri Jai Kishan Poddar and Sh. Anil Khemka. A perusal of the statements shows that they had made general remarks about how he provided bogus LTCG to certain persons. However, they had no where taken the name of assessee that the assessee got accommodation entry from them. v. Purchases

Shri Arnav Goyal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena,Addl.CIT
Section 10(38)Section 68

assessment proceedings or by the Ld. CIT(A) in appellate proceedings in support of the conclusion drawn by them that the assessee had earned bogus LTCG in connivance with Shri Jai Kishan Poddar or Sh. Anil Khemka. On the other hand the assessee has filed various documents duly evidencing purchase ... Shri Jai Kishan Poddar and Sh. Anil Khemka. A perusal of the statements shows that they had made general remarks about how he provided bogus LTCG to certain persons. However, they had no where taken the name of assessee that the assessee got accommodation entry from them. v. Purchases

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 66/VIZ/2021[20105-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2021 & 66/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal Circle-1(1) 25-8-246, Main Road Visakhapatnam Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarpw2133K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

Officer [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)[2020] / 268 Taxman 320 (SC) / [2019] 112 taxmann.com 329 (Delhi) that have confirmed the additions based on bogus LTCG before deleting the addition of Rs.58,47,609/- in the instant case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add or delete or amend or substitute ... these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, it is prayed that all these above additions made on bogus LTCG be restored. 3. At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice that the appeal filed by the revenue