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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

stock exchange. Thereafter, the shares of the got split one into 10 shares, accordingly the assessee in lieu of 4000 shares got 40000 shares of impugned company which were sold during May 2010. The adjusted closing price of the shares at the time of splitting was Rs. 3.2 per share and earlier the same was more or less constant around

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

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

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

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

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

penny stock companies, in enquiries conducted by SEBI/BSE, as well as in Investigation Report issued by Investigation Wing, Kolkata. The Assessee having purchased shares of this company in huge volumes, should have possessed all required documents, as a prudent investor. The Assessee thus did not establish activities/business of companies, financial statements, annual income tax returns etc., in respect of alleged

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

penny stock companies, in enquiries conducted by SEBI/BSE, as well as in Investigation Report issued by Investigation Wing, Kolkata. The Assessee having purchased shares of this company in huge volumes, should have possessed all required documents, as a prudent investor. The Assessee thus did not establish activities/business of companies, financial statements, annual income tax returns etc., in respect of alleged

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

penny stock companies, in enquiries conducted by SEBI/BSE, as well as in Investigation Report issued by Investigation Wing, Kolkata. The Assessee having purchased shares of this company in huge volumes, should have possessed all required documents, as a prudent investor. The Assessee thus did not establish activities/business of companies, financial statements, annual income tax returns etc., in respect of alleged

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

penny stock companies, in enquiries conducted by SEBI/BSE, as well as in Investigation Report issued by Investigation Wing, Kolkata. The Assessee having purchased shares of this company in huge volumes, should have possessed all required documents, as a prudent investor. The Assessee thus did not establish activities/business of companies, financial statements, annual income tax returns etc., in respect of alleged

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penny stock companies, in enquiries conducted by SEBI/BSE, as well as in Investigation Report issued by Investigation Wing, Kolkata. The Assessee having purchased shares of this company in huge volumes, should have possessed all required documents, as a prudent investor. The Assessee thus did not establish activities/business of companies, financial statements, annual income tax returns etc., in respect of alleged

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penny stock companies, in enquiries conducted by SEBI/BSE, as well as in Investigation Report issued by Investigation Wing, Kolkata. The Assessee having purchased shares of this company in huge volumes, should have possessed all required documents, as a prudent investor. The Assessee thus did not establish activities/business of companies, financial statements, annual income tax returns etc., in respect of alleged

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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

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

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

penny stock companies, in enquiries conducted by SEBI/BSE, as well as in Investigation Report issued by Investigation Wing, Kolkata. The Assessee having purchased shares of this company in huge volumes, should have possessed all required documents, as a prudent investor. The Assessee thus did not establish activities/business of companies, financial statements, annual income tax returns etc., in respect of alleged

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

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Snehalatha Singhi, The Deputy Flat No. 101, Commissioner Of Pride Elite, Income Tax, No. 10, Museum Road, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Ajmps0427Q Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija, Assessee By Advocates : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10.08.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/03/2015 For Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,31,57,680/-. Ld.Ao Observed That Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Amounting To Rs.3,10,94,952/- Towards Sale Of Equity Shares. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

penny stock company. Page 3 of 11 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 by way of price difference in share transactions

SNEHALATHA SINGHI ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

penny stock issue and also the assessee had not filed her original return of income and therefore the reassessment proceedings are necessary. Thereafter the AO had considered the financials of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd. in which the assessee was allotted 5,00,000 Page 6 of 11 shares of Rs. 10/- each at a premium

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

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

penny stock company's affairs, comparative financials of the company for last 5 years that the company did not have any turnover and the company had declared only losses continuously from 2009 to 2013. The Director's Report also stated that the company was facing huge set back. After examining the circumstances, AO concluded that it was beyond belief that

SMT. YASHODA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

penny stock used to manipulate the market and provide bogus LTCG. The A.O. after considering the financials of Tuni Textiles and the outcome of the Investigation Wing of Kolkata Directorate of Investigation, in the case of different broker / entry operators held that the assessee had arranged bogus LTCG and claimed such income as exempt. Therefore, the sale consideration received

SMT. AMITA DHUPAR,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

penny stock matters. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under section 234Aand 234B of the Act by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 3. In the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that the impugned order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable because this was the argument

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

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.

disallowance the STCL claimed of Rs.(-)1,75,000/- is upheld. 7.16 Appellant has contended that AO did not produce the witnesses whose statements were recorded and used against the Appellant. The contention of the Appellant is not acceptable in view of following judgments:- i. The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs ACIT, ITAT

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

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: -

penny stock companies which included the company NCL Research and Financial Services Ltd. were artificially rigged to benefit the shareholders to raise bogus claim of LTCG. The AO after discussing the modus operandi of providing of such accommodation entries as detailed in the report of the Investigation Directorate undertook an analysis of the financials of NCL Research and Financial Services