SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

penny stocks were artificially jacked up the cartel of various entry providers and this fact had duly been accepted by SCS in his sworn statements. He also observed that the statement of S/Shri R.K. Kedia, Manish Arora, Shrish Chanderkant Shah(SCS), Jagdish Purohit, Parveen Jain (Pintu alias Chintan), Parveen Kumar Agarwal etc were based on the clinching evidences

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

penny stocks were artificially jacked up the cartel of various entry providers and this fact had duly been accepted by SCS in his sworn statements. He also observed that the statement of S/Shri R.K. Kedia, Manish Arora, Shrish Chanderkant Shah(SCS), Jagdish Purohit, Parveen Jain (Pintu alias Chintan), Parveen Kumar Agarwal etc were based on the clinching evidences

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

penny stocks were artificially jacked up the cartel of various entry providers and this fact had duly been accepted by SCS in his sworn statements. He also observed that the statement of S/Shri R.K. Kedia, Manish Arora, Shrish Chanderkant Shah(SCS), Jagdish Purohit, Parveen Jain (Pintu alias Chintan), Parveen Kumar Agarwal etc were based on the clinching evidences

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

penny stocks were artificially jacked up the cartel of various entry providers and this fact had duly been accepted by SCS in his sworn statements. He also observed that the statement of S/Shri R.K. Kedia, Manish Arora, Shrish Chanderkant Shah(SCS), Jagdish Purohit, Parveen Jain (Pintu alias Chintan), Parveen Kumar Agarwal etc were based on the clinching evidences

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

Penny Stocks: The share transaction is genuine because it is supported by contract notes, bills, were carried out through recognized stockbroker of the Stock Exchange and all payments made to, and received from, the stockbroker, were through account payee instruments. A transaction fully supported by documentary evidences cannot be brushed aside on suspicion and surmises. In view of the above

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

Penny Stocks: The share transaction is genuine because it is supported by contract notes, bills, were carried out through recognized stockbroker of the Stock Exchange and all payments made to, and received from, the stockbroker, were through account payee instruments. A transaction fully supported by documentary evidences cannot be brushed aside on suspicion and surmises. In view of the above

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

Penny Stocks: The share transaction is genuine because it is supported by contract notes, bills, were carried out through recognized stockbroker of the Stock Exchange and all payments made to, and received from, the stockbroker, were through account payee instruments. A transaction fully supported by documentary evidences cannot be brushed aside on suspicion and surmises. In view of the above

SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penny Stocks and LTCG earned thereon were bogus in nature. 3.9 Regarding assessee’s contention that no incriminating material was found during the course of search, the AO stated that the said contention is not tenable as the perusal of the contents mentioned at page no. 1 to 182 of Annexure - A seized from Locker no. 194, HDFC Bank shows

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penny Stocks and LTCG earned thereon were bogus in nature. 4.9 Regarding assessee’s contention that no incriminating material was found during the course of search, the AO stated that the said contention is not tenable as the perusal of the contents mentioned at page no. 1 to 182 of Annexure - A seized from Locker no. 194, HDFC Bank shows

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penny Stocks and LTCG earned thereon were bogus in nature. 4.9 Regarding assessee’s contention that no incriminating material was found during the course of search, the AO stated that the said contention is not tenable as the perusal of the contents mentioned at page no. 1 to 182 of Annexure - A seized from Locker no. 194, HDFC Bank shows

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penny Stocks and LTCG earned thereon were bogus in nature. 4.9 Regarding assessee’s contention that no incriminating material was found during the course of search, the AO stated that the said contention is not tenable as the perusal of the contents mentioned at page no. 1 to 182 of Annexure - A seized from Locker no. 194, HDFC Bank shows

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penny Stocks and LTCG earned thereon were bogus in nature. 4.9 Regarding assessee’s contention that no incriminating material was found during the course of search, the AO stated that the said contention is not tenable as the perusal of the contents mentioned at page no. 1 to 182 of Annexure - A seized from Locker no. 194, HDFC Bank shows

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals