Search: bogus purchases | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

7 results for “bogus purchases”+ Penny Stockclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai573 Delhi127 Ahmedabad105 Kolkata91 Jaipur84 Indore47 Hyderabad33 Pune32 Chandigarh31 Guwahati29 Rajkot23 Surat23 Ranchi13 Raipur12 Lucknow12 Visakhapatnam10 Chennai10 Cuttack10 Nagpur10 Patna7 Jodhpur7 Bangalore7 Amritsar7 Varanasi5 Supreme Court1 Panaji1 Agra1 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 6811 Section 10(38)7 Section 1487 Addition to Income6 Section 1475 Exemption5 Long Term Capital Gains4 Natural Justice4 Reassessment

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

4

purchase of shares of Mahaveer Advanced Rem for Rs.10,60,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary in nature on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramanathan, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 68

purchase evidence, contract note, demat account etc. 9. The allegation of the AO is that the scrip of M/s Comfort Intech Ltd is a penny stock and the modus operandi adopted by it is like penny stock only. However, no evidence in this regard brought on record by the AO suggesting that he has been involved in any such activity

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 70/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Kincha, CA

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 68

stock exchange since they were not listed shares and that the loss of Rs.1,75,000/- was on account of proportionate stamp duty paid on purchase of shares which forms part of acquisition of shares and therefore it is an allowable loss. He thus submitted that the objection of non-granting of cross objection is therefore baseless. We have perused

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 481/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep & Ms. Girija G.PFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 234ASection 68Section 69C

bogus LTCG/STCG or LTCL/STCL and provide accommodation entries by beneficiaries. We note that the Ld.AO in para 7.11 for AY 2013-14 raised serious doubts on capacity of assessee to purchase shares of these companies in such huge volumes, which has not been satisfactorily/reasonably established by assessee to be genuine. Assessee thus did not establish genuineness of purchase and source

POONAM GUPTA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10Section 147Section 68

stock exchange. The learned CIT – A held that the DDIT(Investigation) has made a detailed finding on the modus operandi of providing accommodation entries of long-term and short-term capital gain and business loss in the scrip of Sunstar Realty Development Ltd. to various beneficiaries. Thus the above investigation cannot be brushed aside and therefore he upheld the order

MANOJ KUMAR ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 621/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

bogus long term capital gain without any basis whatsoever on the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. The learned authorities below are not justified in making the above additions merely on the presumption, surmise and conjecture and not based on any cogent material facts and circumstances of the case. 17. The learned authorities below are also not justified

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 337/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

purchased, 8400 shares were sold during the relevant assessment year for a consideration of Rs.2,10,91,591/-). The assessment was selected for scrutiny for the reason that information was received from the Investigation Wing of Kolkata that the price of some the shares of penny stock companies which included the company NCL Research and Financial Services Ltd. were artificially