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)

reassessment proceedings and hence the reopening of assessment for second time merely on the basis of some information received from a third party to the effect that the company viz Radhe Developers (India) Ltd. is a penny stock

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)

reassessment proceedings and hence the reopening of assessment for second time merely on the basis of some information received from a third party to the effect that the company viz Radhe Developers (India) Ltd. is a penny stock

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)

reassessment proceedings and hence the reopening of assessment for second time merely on the basis of some information received from a third party to the effect that the company viz Radhe Developers (India) Ltd. is a penny stock

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#।]

penny stock transactions. o In the corresponding Cross-objections the assessees have challenged the legality of the assessment orders for want of valid approval u/s 153D of the Act. • In ITA No. 130/AHD/2024, the assessee Smt. Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia challenges the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of alleged on-money received in the Earth

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

reassessment. The appellant submits that the notice under Section 148 is bad in law. 4.0 The order passed by the CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad is bad in law and contrary to the facts. The CIT(A) has grossly failed to consider the facts and submissions and his decision is prejudicial and biased. 4.1 The appellant submits that

RACHNA SANJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri/St.R. Senthil Kumar & Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst.Year :2014-2015 Rachana Sanjay Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Tapovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Amdps 6571 P

reassessment order, the ld.Pr.CIT found that the assessee had earned bogus long term ld.Pr.CIT found that the assessee had earned bogus long term ld.Pr.CIT found that the assessee had earned bogus long term capital gain of Rs.92,12,772/ capital gain of Rs.92,12,772/- by manipulating trading by manipulating trading of penny stock

ROHIT PRAKASHCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

penny stock company M/s. Nyasa Corporation Limited was arranged through one Shri Naresh Jain, who had admitted that he was providing accommodation entries through such transactions. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated the transactions made by the assessee as accommodation entry and the entire sale proceeds of shares amounting to Rs.1,88,34,063/- was held as unexplained cash credit

JAYANTILAL PANACHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2014-15 Jayantilal Panachand Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Topovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aqnps 2754 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

penny stock scrip of Looks Health Services Ltd.). 7.1 In view of the fact of the case and ruling of Hon'ble Supreme court, it is clear that the assessment order is passed by the A.O., without making proper examination of the issues mentioned above. The Assessing Officer has failed to make addition in accordance with the provisions

ROBIN RAMAVTAR GOENKA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue IT[SS]A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reassess the income of the assessee only on the basis of the incriminating material. 2. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition made of Rs. 1,50,01,944/- made on account of payout on bogus sale of penny stock

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

penny stock transaction, and subsequently claiming bogus long term capital loss against the same, which the AO had failed to verify in proceedings under section 147 of the Act. 11. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that reassessment

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

penny stock companies. The appellant states that such contradictory and fluctuating stands in different cases itself speaks of the manner in which the assessment has been reopened and additions have been made. In view of the above, the appellant company submits that both i.e. notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as well as the impugned assessment order passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURESHKUMAR BHIKALAL THAKKER, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

penny stock shares of\nSafal Herbs Ltd., a company identified by the Department as having no\ngenuine business operations and whose share prices were manipulated to\ngenerate fictitious exempt capital gains.\n4. During the reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Appeal is allowed in ITA 978/Ahd/2025 and ITA\n978/Ahd/2025 as well

penny stock\" company.\nRelying upon this report, the AO initiated re-assessment\nproceedings under section 147 of the Act In response, the assessee filed a\nreturn of income on 11.04.2022, again declaring total income of Rs.\n35,95,080/-. During the reassessment

NEETU HURKAT,PALI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penny stock which has\nbeen used to provide bogus profit/loss to the beneficiaries. Conclusion of Ld. PCIT\nis based on surmises and conjectures and therefore, cannot take the place of proof.\n5. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend any of the\ngrounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal\n3.\nBrief

GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penny stock companies used for providing accommodation entries of bogus capital gains and losses. The Assessing Officer relied upon the findings of the Investigation Wing and SEBI’s order on price manipulation of the said company’s shares to hold that the assessee had converted her unaccounted income into legitimate form by claiming the said LTCG as exempt. Accordingly

MUNJAL MRUGESH JAYKRISHNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarshri T.R. Senthil Kumar

penny stock transactions and claimed the same as exempt income, thereby not offering the same to tax. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Jurisdictional High Court and several other High Courts and Tribunals, “Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the character of evidence. Where no specific evidence showing nexus of the assessee with the conversion

NAVNEETBHAI RAMANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.223/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel The Ito बनाम/ 19, New Ambica Park Society Ward-2(1)(2) V/S. D Cabin Sabarmati Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 380 019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqzpp 2479 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Trivedi, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/10/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

penny stock” or bogus transaction. The Assessing Officer has merely made general references to information received from the Investigation Wing and from the Bombay Stock Exchange without identifying the specific transaction or scrip involved or bringing any tangible material on record to connect the assessee with any such alleged manipulation or accommodation entry. 9. It is a settled principle

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. GIRISHKUMAR AMRATLAL BHANDARI HUF, HIMATNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

penny stock\" company.\nRelying upon this report, the AO initiated re-assessment\nproceedings under section 147 of the Act In response, the assessee filed a\nreturn of income on 11.04.2022, again declaring total income of Rs.\n35,95,080/-. During the reassessment