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. 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. 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

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

penny stock. He has not conducted any enquiry.\n17.1 On the other hand 1d. CIT DR relied upon the\norders of the Revenue Authorities. He further relied upon the\nfollowing judgements:\n1. Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the\ncase of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs Pr.CIT ITA\n18/2017\n2. Judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

penny stock. He has not conducted any enquiry.\n17.1\nOn the other hand 1d. CIT DR relied upon the\norders of the Revenue Authorities. He further relied upon the\nfollowing judgements:\n1. Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the\ncase of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs Pr.CIT ITA\n18/2017\n2. Judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

penny stock. He has not conducted any enquiry.\n17.1\nOn the other hand 1d. CIT DR relied upon the\norders of the Revenue Authorities. He further relied upon the\nfollowing judgements:\n1. Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the\ncase of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs Pr.CIT ITA\n18/2017\n2. Judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court

SMT. RITU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

ANISH GARG,PATIALA vs. ITO WARD-4, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penny stock to\nconvert his undisclosed income into exempt income. How the AO has reached\nsuch a conclusive finding and basis thereof is again not borne out from the\nreasons so recorded by him. (Para 15)\n5.6 Further, reliance was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High\nCourt in case of M/s Hemant Traders

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AVINASH SINGLA, KHANNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 814 & 815/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Avinash Singla, Central Circle-1, बनाम C-47, C.O Avinash Ludhiana Industries, Focal Point, Khanna "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Acypk9591N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Meenu Singla, बनाम Central Circle-1, C-47, C.O Avinash Ludhiana Industries, Focal Point, Khanna "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No.Afips6556G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

penni stock, tax effect circular will not be applicable. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 9. The facts on all vital points are common in all the three years, rather, order of ld. CIT(A) is verbatim same except variation in the dates and quantum of the additions. Therefore, for the facility

SH. BALJINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL 171, MODEL TOWN LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. JATIN ABBI THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 689/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Shri Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal, The Acit, 171, Model Town, Circle-1, Vs Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Bmcpk7473A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025

penny stock and its claim for exemption of the Long Term Capital Gain is not a genuine one. The AO, accordingly, reopened the assessment. ITA 689/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 3 4. A perusal of the record would reveal that on 04.08.2009, assessee has purchased 2700 shares of Sarathi Dealers Pvt. Ltd. (SDPL) for a total consideration of Rs.10

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassess without conducting and independent inquiry is bad in law. While making this argument, apparently the appellant has ignored the discretionary power vested in the AO u/s 148A(a) to conduct an inquiry with prior approval of specified authority if he requires to do so, after receipt of information. The argument of the appellant is not maintainable

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassess without conducting and independent inquiry is bad in law. While making this argument, apparently the appellant has ignored the discretionary power vested in the AO u/s 148A(a) to conduct an inquiry with prior approval of specified authority if he requires to do so, after receipt of information. The argument of the appellant is not maintainable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AVINASH SINGLA, KHANNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

reassess the total\nincome for the entire six years block assessment period even\nin case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the\nsecond\nproviso to Section 153A, only pending\nassessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO\nwould assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated\nassessments.\nIt does not provide that all\ncompleted/unabated assessments shall abate. If the\nsubmission on behalf