bogus LTCG — 806 case laws

Ranjit Kumar Modi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1753/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1753/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Ranjit Kumar Modi,………………………....……Appellant Room No. 419, 4Th Floor, 39, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Burra Bazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Ajkpm9611Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-44(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Bishnu Kant Agarwal, C.A, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

assessee at Rs.23,63,746/- (i.e. total income shown as per income tax return Rs.4,74,110/- plus sales value in respect of bogus LTCG claimed u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.17,99,654/- plus commission as per section 69C of the Act amounting to Rs.89

Kalpanaben Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 928/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, AR

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 1ISection 210Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 68

case of the assessee. This is evident from the fact that the AO failed to identify the nature of the transaction whether it was bogus LTCG or bogus STCG, having mentioned both in his reasons recorded. Further, the AO has not even identified the scrip traded in by the assessee

Anoop Jain HUF, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4043/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Ritu Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1 Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aampj9586C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aadpj2136K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Huf Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aaaha6321A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Tulsian, Adv. & Shri Bhoomija Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahes Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

unaccounted income of the assessee; (ii) Addition of INR 21,29,543/- was made u/s 69C on account of alleged commission paid for obtaining bogus LTCG and further invoked section 115BBE; and (iii) Addition of INR 10,00,000/- was made u/s 69A by treating the cost price ... That the Ld.A.O. and the Ld.CIT(A) have consequentially also erred in adding back / sustaining Rs.21,29,543/- (being 3% of as the alleged bogus LTCG) as alleged commission paid by the Appellant towards obtaining alleged. 6. That the Ld.A.O. in complete ignorance of the documentary evidence submitted by Assessee

Anoop Jain, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4042/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Ritu Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1 Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aampj9586C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aadpj2136K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Huf Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aaaha6321A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Tulsian, Adv. & Shri Bhoomija Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahes Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

unaccounted income of the assessee; (ii) Addition of INR 21,29,543/- was made u/s 69C on account of alleged commission paid for obtaining bogus LTCG and further invoked section 115BBE; and (iii) Addition of INR 10,00,000/- was made u/s 69A by treating the cost price ... That the Ld.A.O. and the Ld.CIT(A) have consequentially also erred in adding back / sustaining Rs.21,29,543/- (being 3% of as the alleged bogus LTCG) as alleged commission paid by the Appellant towards obtaining alleged. 6. That the Ld.A.O. in complete ignorance of the documentary evidence submitted by Assessee

Ritu Jain, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4038/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Ritu Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1 Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aampj9586C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aadpj2136K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Huf Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aaaha6321A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Tulsian, Adv. & Shri Bhoomija Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahes Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

unaccounted income of the assessee; (ii) Addition of INR 21,29,543/- was made u/s 69C on account of alleged commission paid for obtaining bogus LTCG and further invoked section 115BBE; and (iii) Addition of INR 10,00,000/- was made u/s 69A by treating the cost price ... That the Ld.A.O. and the Ld.CIT(A) have consequentially also erred in adding back / sustaining Rs.21,29,543/- (being 3% of as the alleged bogus LTCG) as alleged commission paid by the Appellant towards obtaining alleged. 6. That the Ld.A.O. in complete ignorance of the documentary evidence submitted by Assessee

Archit Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Archit Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of B-41, Kailsah Colony, Income Tax, Circle 29, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension Pan: Aeupg2360R New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv, Ms.Monalisa Maity, Adv Revenue By Sh. Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/10/2025 Order

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

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

Ritu Patwari, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on legal issue

ITA 288/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 6Section 68

dated 15.12.2017 making an addition of Rs.6,86,38,605/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of bogus LTCG earned by the assessee by trading in penny stock. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee

Deepesh Vishnu Agarwal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 168/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.168/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (Hybrid Hearing) Depesh Vishnu Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- Vs. Road, Surat-395 007 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Depesh Vishnu Agarwal बनाम/ 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. Vs. 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa 2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149ASection 250Section 69Section 69C

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat vs. Deepesh Vishnu Agarwal, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.168/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (Hybrid Hearing) Depesh Vishnu Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- Vs. Road, Surat-395 007 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Depesh Vishnu Agarwal बनाम/ 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. Vs. 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa 2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149ASection 250Section 69Section 69C

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

ITA 498/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

statements of the assessee as well as his accountant Mr.Anokhchand Jain on 22.11.2019. 6. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed bogus LTCG of Rs.7,68,24,174/- from sale of shares of a penny stock company namely M/s PFL Infotech Ltd, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as PFLIL ... collusion with Shri. Naresh Jain, a known Hawala Operator manipulated the mechanism of share market and facilitated various beneficiaries including the assessee to claim bogus LTCG using the shares of PFLIL. 7. The Assessing Officer further noted that during the enforcement operations conducted by the Income tax department

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 497/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

statements of the assessee as well as his accountant Mr.Anokhchand Jain on 22.11.2019. 6. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed bogus LTCG of Rs.7,68,24,174/- from sale of shares of a penny stock company namely M/s PFL Infotech Ltd, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as PFLIL ... collusion with Shri. Naresh Jain, a known Hawala Operator manipulated the mechanism of share market and facilitated various beneficiaries including the assessee to claim bogus LTCG using the shares of PFLIL. 7. The Assessing Officer further noted that during the enforcement operations conducted by the Income tax department

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1565/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

statements of the assessee as well as his accountant Mr.Anokhchand Jain on 22.11.2019. 6. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed bogus LTCG of Rs.7,68,24,174/- from sale of shares of a penny stock company namely M/s PFL Infotech Ltd, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as PFLIL ... collusion with Shri. Naresh Jain, a known Hawala Operator manipulated the mechanism of share market and facilitated various beneficiaries including the assessee to claim bogus LTCG using the shares of PFLIL. 7. The Assessing Officer further noted that during the enforcement operations conducted by the Income tax department

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

ITA 1561/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

statements of the assessee as well as his accountant Mr.Anokhchand Jain on 22.11.2019. 6. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed bogus LTCG of Rs.7,68,24,174/- from sale of shares of a penny stock company namely M/s PFL Infotech Ltd, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as PFLIL ... collusion with Shri. Naresh Jain, a known Hawala Operator manipulated the mechanism of share market and facilitated various beneficiaries including the assessee to claim bogus LTCG using the shares of PFLIL. 7. The Assessing Officer further noted that during the enforcement operations conducted by the Income tax department

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

ITA 1560/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

statements of the assessee as well as his accountant Mr.Anokhchand Jain on 22.11.2019. 6. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed bogus LTCG of Rs.7,68,24,174/- from sale of shares of a penny stock company namely M/s PFL Infotech Ltd, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as PFLIL ... collusion with Shri. Naresh Jain, a known Hawala Operator manipulated the mechanism of share market and facilitated various beneficiaries including the assessee to claim bogus LTCG using the shares of PFLIL. 7. The Assessing Officer further noted that during the enforcement operations conducted by the Income tax department

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1555/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Respondent: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

statements of the assessee as well as his accountant Mr.Anokhchand Jain on 22.11.2019. 6. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed bogus LTCG of Rs.7,68,24,174/- from sale of shares of a penny stock company namely M/s PFL Infotech Ltd, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as PFLIL ... collusion with Shri. Naresh Jain, a known Hawala Operator manipulated the mechanism of share market and facilitated various beneficiaries including the assessee to claim bogus LTCG using the shares of PFLIL. 7. The Assessing Officer further noted that during the enforcement operations conducted by the Income tax department

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Megha Garg, Delhi

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

ITA 3488/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Income Tax Officer, Megha Garg, 1707 E-2 Block Civic Centre, 160 Saraswati Vihar Vaishali, New Delhi-110002 Vs Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan-Aecpg7098C Appellant Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69A

assessee (APB, Pg.83 para 9.6) (e) Price Rigging was established that Surabhi Chemical scrip were involved in artificial rigging of price to provide bogus LTCG whereas in the instant case, the order of adjudicating authority of SEBI was challenged before Security Appellate Tribunal Mumbai and it has been held

Anjali Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -1(2), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3605/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Ms. Anjali Gupta, Ito, Ward-1(2), A-84, Summit, Dlf City-5, Gurgaon, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Vs Haryana Pan-Aaipg5132F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of www.taxguru.in ITA 125/2020 and connected matters Page 8 of 10 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 ... 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

Brij Kishore Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 574/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 572/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2014-15) Ita No. 574/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) Brij Kishore Sabharwal Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Rra Tax India D-28, South Income Tax, Extension Part-1 Delhi Central Circle-16, Pan: Aaxps6830P Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv (Through Vc) & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 132Section 153CSection 153D

said Pankaj Kumar that information contained in the hard disks inventoried Brij Kishore Sabharwal Vs. ACIT relates to activity of providing bogus LTCG entry by the Assessee. Assessment orders came to be passed on 30/12/2018 u/s 153C/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) in respect

Brij Kishore Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle -16, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 573/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 572/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2014-15) Ita No. 574/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) Brij Kishore Sabharwal Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Rra Tax India D-28, South Income Tax, Extension Part-1 Delhi Central Circle-16, Pan: Aaxps6830P Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv (Through Vc) & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 132Section 153CSection 153D

said Pankaj Kumar that information contained in the hard disks inventoried Brij Kishore Sabharwal Vs. ACIT relates to activity of providing bogus LTCG entry by the Assessee. Assessment orders came to be passed on 30/12/2018 u/s 153C/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) in respect

Brij Kishore Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 572/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 572/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2014-15) Ita No. 574/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) Brij Kishore Sabharwal Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Rra Tax India D-28, South Income Tax, Extension Part-1 Delhi Central Circle-16, Pan: Aaxps6830P Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv (Through Vc) & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 132Section 153CSection 153D

said Pankaj Kumar that information contained in the hard disks inventoried Brij Kishore Sabharwal Vs. ACIT relates to activity of providing bogus LTCG entry by the Assessee. Assessment orders came to be passed on 30/12/2018 u/s 153C/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) in respect

“bogus LTCG”

Leading authorities on bogus LTCG

Judgments citing bogus LTCG

Ranjit Kumar Modi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

Kalpanaben Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

Anoop Jain HUF, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle - 1, Noida

Anoop Jain, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle - 1, Noida

Ritu Jain, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 1, Noida

Archit Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

Ritu Patwari, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC 4(4), Kolkata

Deepesh Vishnu Agarwal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat vs. Deepesh Vishnu Agarwal, Surat

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Megha Garg, Delhi

Anjali Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -1(2), Gurgaon

Brij Kishore Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

Brij Kishore Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle -16, Delhi

Brij Kishore Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi