BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

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.

54 results for “capital gains”+ Penny Stockclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai928Delhi344Kolkata260Chennai235Ahmedabad159Jaipur142Indore92Calcutta73Chandigarh66Pune55Bangalore54Hyderabad48Surat42Guwahati37Lucknow37Cuttack25Raipur21Rajkot20Ranchi16Nagpur15Jodhpur8Patna8Amritsar7Varanasi5Visakhapatnam4Agra4Jabalpur3Telangana2Orissa2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 6865Section 10(38)47Capital Gains44Section 14838Addition to Income36Natural Justice34Long Term Capital Gains33Exemption25Section 69C

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

Capital Gains (LTCG) which is exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a pre-determined Penny stock

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

24
Section 14723
Penny Stock20
Section 14417

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

Capital Gains (LTCG) which is exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a pre-determined Penny stock

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

Capital Gains (LTCG) which is exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a pre-determined Penny stock

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

Capital Gains (LTCG) which is exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a pre-determined Penny stock

SHRI. SURENDRA KEDIA,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2183/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015–16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

capital gains under section 68 by holding it to be a penny stock. 4. Against addition made by Ld.AO, assessee

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

capital gain benefit on trading of this shares which is exempt u/s 10(38 ) of the Act. 13. The assessee's case was reopened under section 148 of the Act based on the AO's belief that the assessee benefited from accommodation entries related to penny stock

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

penny stock company. Page 6 of 18 ITA Nos. 380 to 382/Bang/2020 2.2. It has been submitted that Ld.AO concluded the assessment by holding that the transaction in the share price of alleged companies were not owing to commercial principles and market factors and that assessee resorted to a preconceived scheme to procure long term capital gains

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

penny stock company. Page 6 of 18 ITA Nos. 380 to 382/Bang/2020 2.2. It has been submitted that Ld.AO concluded the assessment by holding that the transaction in the share price of alleged companies were not owing to commercial principles and market factors and that assessee resorted to a preconceived scheme to procure long term capital gains

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

penny stock company. Page 6 of 18 ITA Nos. 380 to 382/Bang/2020 2.2. It has been submitted that Ld.AO concluded the assessment by holding that the transaction in the share price of alleged companies were not owing to commercial principles and market factors and that assessee resorted to a preconceived scheme to procure long term capital gains

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

capital gain on the sale of impugned scripts for Rs. 10,86,720/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 8. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that transaction of purchase and sale of shares of M/s Comfort Intech Ltd are . Page

JEETENDRA KANUNGA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2531/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranshri Jeetendra Kanunga, B-05,5Th Floor, Solus Jain Heights, 1St Cross, Jc Road, Bangalore-560 027 Pan No.Ajypk6026F Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N.Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 08-06-2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2020

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 236Section 263

capital gains shown in return (penny stock tab in ITS). However, it was noticed that the AO has failed to conduct

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

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

ITA 378/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

penny stock is fresh / new evidence sufficient to reopen the assessment as there is a reasonable belief that the long term capital gain

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

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

ITA 379/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

penny stock is fresh / new evidence sufficient to reopen the assessment as there is a reasonable belief that the long term capital gain

RAJIV KUMAR BHUTRA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiita. No. 48/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Rajiv Kumar Bhutra, No. 3, 3Rd Cross, The Income Tax Officer, Mysore Road, Ward – 5 (2) (4), Bangalore – 560 026. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aakpb9339F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Nitish Ranjan, Ca For Revenue : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021 Order Per Beena Pillai, Jm. Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/01/2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-5, Bangalore. 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted That, There Is A Delay In Filing Present Appeal Before This Tribunal Amounting To 1045 Days. 3. We Note That Assessee Has Not Filed Any Application For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit In Support Explaining The Delay Of 1045 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld.Ar At The Time Of Hearing Relied On Order Passed By Coordinate Smc Bench Of This Tribunal For Assessment Year 2014-15 In Assesses Own Case In Support.

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl. CIT (DR)

capital gains, the assessee claimed the same as exempt. 8. The A.O. noticed both the above said companies have been categorized as Penny stock

SHRI. RAJIV KUMAR BHUTRA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran“Smc” Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

capital gains, the assessee claimed the same as exempt. 8. The A.O. noticed both the above said companies have been categorized as Penny stock

SHRI. SANJIV BHUTRA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 43/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran“Smc” Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

capital gains, the assessee claimed the same as exempt. 8. The A.O. noticed both the above said companies have been categorized as Penny stock

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

capital gain has been earned by sale of share as penny stock. After recording of reasons and taking necessary approval

M/S PRECIOUS SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1778/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sunil D. Surana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Gain/ Page 5 of 7 Bogus Short Term Capital Loss/Bogus Business Loss through trading of shares of penny stocks. The basic

SHRI. UTTAMCHAND KHATRI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 823/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesh, JDIT
Section 10(28)Section 68

capital gain is not allowable. f. Ignorance of the assesee about shares and penny stock companies: Assessee has failed to show

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA(HUF),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2377/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Padmanabha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10(38)Section 68

capital gain as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. 4. The AO noticed that there was an investigation carried out by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata into 84 Penny Stocks