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

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

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

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

ANJULA GOEL ,PARWANOO vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

penny stock i.e M/s Cressanda Solutions Limited. The AO noted that the Investigation Wing Kolkata had carried out Survey operation u/s 133A of the Act in case of M/s Manu Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. on 19.04.2015, wherein statement of Shri Ritesh Jain was recorded in which he stated that Shri Ajit Tulsian and Shri Deepak Patwari were the promoters

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

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. 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

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

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