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

stock companies, the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking\nsection 68 and denying exemption under section 10(38). Further, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in Suman Poddar v. Income Tax Officer [2019] 112\ntaxmann.com 330 (SC)/[2020] 268 Taxman 320 (SC) upheld the orders of the\nlower authorities denying exemption under section 10(38) in respect of\nsimilar penny

BHAGWATIBEN VINODKUMAR SURANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(1)., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

penny stock companies are acquired by the beneficiaries of LTCG at very low prices through the route of preferential allotment (private placement) and of market transaction. These shares have a lock-in period of 1 year as per Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations 2009.lt is also observed that in some

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/-.

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/-. 4. That the CIT- Appeals is not justified in upholding the action of AO in adding unilaterally estimating the amount of commission as unexplained expenditure under section

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:

penny stock companies over a short period of time of little more than one year, the genuinity of such steep rise in the prices of shares needs to be established and the onus is on the assessee to do so as mandated in Section 68

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

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

stock companies, the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking\nsection 68 and denying exemption under section 10(38). Further, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in Suman Poddar v. Income Tax Officer [2019] 112\ntaxmann.com 330 (SC)/[2020] 268 Taxman 320 (SC) upheld the orders of the\nlower authorities denying exemption under section 10(38) in respect of\nsimilar penny

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

stock companies, the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking\nsection 68 and denying exemption under section 10(38). Further, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in Suman Poddar v. Income Tax Officer [2019] 112\ntaxmann.com 330 (SC)/[2020] 268 Taxman 320 (SC) upheld the orders of the\nlower authorities denying exemption under section 10(38) in respect of\nsimilar penny

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

section 68 in respect of sale of shares of Kushal Tradelink Ltd. had been deleted by the NFAC, holding that the scrip was not a penny stock

SURESH B. AGRAWAL HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

penny stocks were artificially rigged to benefit of assessees through bogus claims of LTCG. It is further stated that the report submitted by the Directorate of Investigation mentions about the prices of shares of various companies which includes Surabhi Chemicals and the prices were artificially rigged to provide bogus LTCG. It is submitted that the trade pattern of the shares

SMT. PARAMADEVI TEKRIWAL, ,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal, The Income-Tax Officer, D-143, Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar Vs Ward 1(5), Pan : Addpt 3030 F Bhavnagar अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 09.07.2018. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Originally On 16.03.2014. Although The Said Return Was Originally Accepted Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short), The Assessment Was Subsequently Reopened By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Information Received From Investigation Wing Of The Income-Tax Department That The Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1,13,53,982/- Arising From The Sale Of Equity Shares Of Kgn Enterprise Ltd. For A Consideration Of Rs.1,13,87,902/- Claimed As Exempt In The Return Of Income Was Bogus & It Was Actually An Accommodation Entry. The Assessing Officer Accordingly Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. Ito Ay : 2013-14 2

Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer held that the aforesaid transactions of purchase of two Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. ITO AY : 2013-14 12 penny stock shares for Rs.60,000/-, the merger of the companies with a new company and the sale of the shares for Rs.11,58,930/- fell within the ambit of adventure

ALPA UDAYKUMAR SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

penny stock, the assessee is also one of the ITA No. 391/Ahd/2018 [Alpa Udaykumar Shah Vs. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 5 - beneficiary. Therefore the amount credited in the bank of account of the assesse needs to be taxed under section 68

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

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

stock exchange after payment of security transaction tax Tribunal upheld Commissioner (Appeal)'s decision, emphasizing assessee's right to correct mistakes and criticized Assessing Officer's reliance on statements from entry operators' to support additions under sections 68 and 69 as those statements were recorded in unrelated proceedings before survey on assessee, and assessee was not afforded an opportunity

SABBIRALI ALIMIYA SAIYED,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 904/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 वष"

68 of the Act by furnishing the details with respect to the identity of the party, genuineness of the transactions and sources of the funds received on the sale of shares. A.Y. 2014-15 4 4.4 The assessee regarding the statement of Shri Sanjay Vora- of M/s Anand Rathi Shares & Stock Brokers Limited recorded under section

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

section 68 of the Act. In the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain89 taxmann.com 196 15. (Bombay), the High Court held that where assessee had purchased shares of ITA Nos.14 to 16/Ahd/2024 Shailesh Subodhchandra Jhaveri vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2012-13 - 18– penny stocks

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

section 68 of the Act. In the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain89 taxmann.com 196 15. (Bombay), the High Court held that where assessee had purchased shares of ITA Nos.14 to 16/Ahd/2024 Shailesh Subodhchandra Jhaveri vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2012-13 - 18– penny stocks

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

section 68 of the Act. In the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain89 taxmann.com 196 15. (Bombay), the High Court held that where assessee had purchased shares of ITA Nos.14 to 16/Ahd/2024 Shailesh Subodhchandra Jhaveri vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2012-13 - 18– penny stocks

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)

penny stock being based on irrelevant analysis is nothing but mere change of opinion of borrowed satisfaction, which is not permissible in law. Thus, the impugned re-assessment order requires to be quashed ab-initio. The ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer fails to furnish the copy of material or evidence relied upon including the statements recorded as referred

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)

penny stock being based on irrelevant analysis is nothing but mere change of opinion of borrowed satisfaction, which is not permissible in law. Thus, the impugned re-assessment order requires to be quashed ab-initio. The ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer fails to furnish the copy of material or evidence relied upon including the statements recorded as referred

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)

penny stock being based on irrelevant analysis is nothing but mere change of opinion of borrowed satisfaction, which is not permissible in law. Thus, the impugned re-assessment order requires to be quashed ab-initio. The ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer fails to furnish the copy of material or evidence relied upon including the statements recorded as referred

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)

penny stock being based on irrelevant analysis is nothing but mere change of opinion of borrowed satisfaction, which is not permissible in law. Thus, the impugned re-assessment order requires to be quashed ab-initio. The ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer fails to furnish the copy of material or evidence relied upon including the statements recorded as referred