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.

31 results for “section 68”+ Penny Stockclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai723Delhi261Kolkata198Jaipur123Ahmedabad122Indore70Chandigarh59Calcutta59Hyderabad47Pune40Chennai35Bangalore31Surat30Guwahati28Rajkot23Cuttack20Lucknow19Nagpur14Ranchi10Visakhapatnam9Raipur9Amritsar8Patna5Jodhpur3Agra2Jabalpur1Gauhati1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 6858Section 14833Capital Gains26Section 69C24Section 10(38)21Addition to Income21Natural Justice21Section 14720Section 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

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata investigated transactions in 84 such penny stock shares quoted on BSE and examined on oath a large number of brokers, directors of companies that finally purchased the shares, the promoters of Penny stock companies, the entry operators who managed the dummy companies involved in price rigging

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

Long Term Capital Gains17
Section 234D16
Reassessment15

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

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata investigated transactions in 84 such penny stock shares quoted on BSE and examined on oath a large number of brokers, directors of companies that finally purchased the shares, the promoters of Penny stock companies, the entry operators who managed the dummy companies involved in price rigging

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

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata investigated transactions in 84 such penny stock shares quoted on BSE and examined on oath a large number of brokers, directors of companies that finally purchased the shares, the promoters of Penny stock companies, the entry operators who managed the dummy companies involved in price rigging

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

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata investigated transactions in 84 such penny stock shares quoted on BSE and examined on oath a large number of brokers, directors of companies that finally purchased the shares, the promoters of Penny stock companies, the entry operators who managed the dummy companies involved in price rigging

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

68 of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case, a HUF, has filed its return of income declaring income from other sources and exempted LTCG. The assessee in the return of income has claimed exemption of long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,53,73,386/- under section

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

penny stocks and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing officer. There is absolutely no evidence for rigging of prices of shares of Kemwell Biopharma Pvt Ltd. The assessee had furnished the financial statements of the Kemwell Biopharma Pvt ltd which clearly shows the financial stability of the Page 43 of 52 M/s. The Hamlet, Bangalore company. None

SMT RESHMA GULAB JAIN ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1057/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year :2014-15 Smt. Reshma Gulab Jain, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Sri Krishna Madhav Ward – 5(3)(2), Residency, Bengaluru. No.21/3, Govindappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Ajtpj9834 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 68

Penny stocks, assessed the total receipts from sale of shares of SRK Industries Ltd., an unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

section 68 by holding it to be a penny stock. 4. Against addition made by Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before

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

section 68 of the Act. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to apply the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of Page 6 of 21 ITA Nos. 378 & 379/Bang/2020 shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 10,76,99,848/-. 21. That the authorities below

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

section 68 of the Act. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to apply the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of Page 6 of 21 ITA Nos. 378 & 379/Bang/2020 shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 10,76,99,848/-. 21. That the authorities below

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

penny stock company is negligible. Even though the networth of the company and the business activity of the company is negligible the share prices have been artificially rigged to unusual high. h. Cash trail in the accounts of the entry providers: The investigations in the fund flow analysed in the accounts of the entry providers have established that the cash

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

ITA 508/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

penny stock companies. The AO has issued a detailed show cause notice to the assessee giving a complete picture of the modus operandi and giving reasons as to why the claim of capital gain by the assessee was not genuine. The response of the assessee to the show cause notice has been considered by the AO and the reasons

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

ITA 509/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

penny stock companies. The AO has issued a detailed show cause notice to the assessee giving a complete picture of the modus operandi and giving reasons as to why the claim of capital gain by the assessee was not genuine. The response of the assessee to the show cause notice has been considered by the AO and the reasons

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

ITA 510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

penny stock companies. The AO has issued a detailed show cause notice to the assessee giving a complete picture of the modus operandi and giving reasons as to why the claim of capital gain by the assessee was not genuine. The response of the assessee to the show cause notice has been considered by the AO and the reasons

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

ITA 507/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

penny stock companies. The AO has issued a detailed show cause notice to the assessee giving a complete picture of the modus operandi and giving reasons as to why the claim of capital gain by the assessee was not genuine. The response of the assessee to the show cause notice has been considered by the AO and the reasons

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

68 and section 115BBE of the Act. Further erred in holding the sum of Rs.32,93,66,542/- as unexplained in nature. 13.That the authorities below erred in refusing to apply the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. PSIT Infrastructure & Services Limited (formerly known

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

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

SURESH J KOTHARI HUF,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 650/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., C.AFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 10(38)Section 68

penny stocks and generation of capital gain there from. Accordingly the Assessing Officer took the view that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares entered by the assessee in the shares of above said company were arranged transactions. Accordingly the AO assessed the sale consideration of Rs.43.77 lakhs as income of the assessee under Section 68

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

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