ISMAIL ABDULAZIZ LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: the same were transferred through registered broker, on the floor of the recognized stock exchange, after suffering Security Transaction Tax and ultimately settled through proper banking channel) as unaccounted income under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,51,12,000/-.

penny stock scrip and the company M/s. KDJ Holidayscape and Resort Limited was of no worth but had only engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries of long term capital gain or loss to various entities. This information was revealed during search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act conducted in the case of Jatia Group and other related group

SHAILESH K PATEL-HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 288/Ahd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shailesh K. Patel Huf The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Ward – 3(3)(5), Vs. Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Time Square – I, Op. Ram Baug Bungalow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalhs9548E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah & Shri Aman Shah, अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr 04/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 24.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:

purchase and sale transactions in the shares was completed by the assessee and that the assessee was never aware of the fact that scrips were in the nature of penny stock companies. He contended that in the investigation report carried out by the Calcutta Directorate as well as in the statements recorded by different persons the name of the assessee

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchase and sale of shares as a professional stock broker and is not expected that he would be making systematic losses in three penny stock companies, having no substance whatsoever. An experienced share broker, who has dealt with several companies, is expected to have knowledge regarding the financials of the companies in which the assessee has traded. Secondly, the assessee

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchase and sale of shares as a professional stock broker and is not expected that he would be making systematic losses in three penny stock companies, having no substance whatsoever. An experienced share broker, who has dealt with several companies, is expected to have knowledge regarding the financials of the companies in which the assessee has traded. Secondly, the assessee

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchase and sale of shares as a professional stock broker and is not expected that he would be making systematic losses in three penny stock companies, having no substance whatsoever. An experienced share broker, who has dealt with several companies, is expected to have knowledge regarding the financials of the companies in which the assessee has traded. Secondly, the assessee

SHRI ANILKUMAR M. JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

purchased stock invest and the assessee was allocated 50,000 equity shares in Alpha Graphic India Limited of the face value of Rs.5,00,000/-. The assessee has produced Ledger account of Alpha Stock Invest of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 02.05.1996 and Alpha Share Account showing investment of Rs 5,000/- on 31.03.1999 and 31.03.2017. As per the mandatory requirement

MANISH DEVENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in full

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.918/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Devendrakumar Shah The Ito बनाम/ 206, 2Nd Floor, Kalash 1 Ward-5(3)(1) V/S. Navrangpura Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqjps 4226 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar & Shri Samir Vora, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

penny stock does not by itself, render transactions in such shares non-genuine. The stock market operates under a regulatory framework where shares, irrespective of their financial fundamentals, are allowed to be traded on stock exchanges. Once such share is permitted to be listed and traded, any investor or trader – whether a regular market participant or a one-time investor

SAGAR RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

bogus or sham and having also not classified them as penny stock companies, the impugned addition being based on mere surmises and conjectures, the id. CIT(A) ought to have held the same as wholly unjustified and bad in law. 4. The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in ignoring the fact that in assessment orders passed u/s.143

AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

bogus or sham and having also not classified them as penny stock companies, the impugned addition being based on mere surmises and conjectures, the id. CIT(A) ought to have held the same as wholly unjustified and bad in law. 4. The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in ignoring the fact that in assessment orders passed u/s.143

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

bogus or sham and having also not classified them as penny stock companies, the impugned addition being based on mere surmises and conjectures, the id. CIT(A) ought to have held the same as wholly unjustified and bad in law. 4. The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in ignoring the fact that in assessment orders passed u/s.143

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

bogus or sham and having also not classified them as penny stock companies, the impugned addition being based on mere surmises and conjectures, the id. CIT(A) ought to have held the same as wholly unjustified and bad in law. 4. The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in ignoring the fact that in assessment orders passed u/s.143

ITO, WD. 1(2)(2), RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA vs. NEETABEN SNEHALKUMAR PATEL, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 247/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15) िनधा"रण वष"

purchase of original shares. Such an approach by the ld. CIT(A) cannot be upheld and his order is liable to be reversed for this reason alone. 13. The department had conducted detailed enquiries in the organized racket of bogus LTCG transactions which were claimed exempt from tax. During the course of investigation the transactions in BSE listed penny stocks

INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. DEEPA RAJENDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus loss of Rs.31,58,863/- on trading in such shares and claimed as set off from the LTCG from sale of house property. (ii) The assessee was unable to furnish sufficient proof for purchase of shares of M/s. Shree Shaleen Textiles Limited. (iii) The financial results of the Penny Stock

INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(1),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEEPA RAJENDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus loss of Rs.31,58,863/- on trading in such shares and claimed as set off from the LTCG from sale of house property. (ii) The assessee was unable to furnish sufficient proof for purchase of shares of M/s. Shree Shaleen Textiles Limited. (iii) The financial results of the Penny Stock

KISHORI PANKAJ AGARWAL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

penny stock and was featuring in the list of DIT (Inv.), Kolkata as a company providing bogus long term capital gains / loss. Relying upon the said report of the Investigation Wing, the AO held that long term capital gains declared by the assessee on the sale of the aforesaid scrip of KPL were bogus and made the impugned additions

LALITA RAMNIRANJAN AGARWAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member\nITA No. 662/Ahd/2023\nAssessment Year 2015-16\nLalita Ramniranjan Agarwal,\nB-201, Sandal Wood\nResidency, Urmi Char Rasta\nProductivity Road,\nVadodara-390020\nPAN: AECPA0173J\n(Appellant)\nThe ITO,\nWard-1(2)(4),\nVadodara\nVs\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, A.R.\nRevenue by: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 24-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 28-02-2025\nORD

purchase and sale of equity shares of listed company KPL (listed\nin Bombay Stock Exchange) by placing necessary documents to prove that the\npurchase are directly from the shareholder and sold through a registered broker\nand nothing adverse has been found by the revenue authorities and KPL is not\nheld to be a penny stock company.\n34. Further, with regard

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

purchased at the cost of Rs. 9,41,250/- on 02.01.2015 and subsequently sold on 20.06.2017 for Rs. 14,41,250/-. It was submitted that these transactions have been carried out at recognized stock exchange and after payment of security transaction tax (STT). The Ld. AR invited the attention on the copy of Share Certificate, D-Mat statements, contract notes

JAI TRIPATI STEELS PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Jai Tripati Steels P.Ltd. Vs. The Ld.Pr.Cit-1 402, Maurya Atria Ahmedabad. Opp: Kalgi Stats Bodakdev, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabcj 5104 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Assessee By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

purchase and sale of equity shares and derivative trading, amounting to Rs.75,78,885/- which was found not commensurate with the return of income filed by the assessee, had escaped assessment. But as per the ld.Pr.CIT, the AO despite information in his possession failed to verify this issue, and accordingly, he assumed jurisdiction under section