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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Penny Stockclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai354Delhi96Kolkata78Ahmedabad70Jaipur66Indore46Guwahati28Pune26Chandigarh26Hyderabad18Lucknow12Surat12Chennai10Rajkot9Nagpur9Ranchi9Amritsar8Visakhapatnam8Bangalore6Cuttack5Raipur4Jodhpur3Agra2Patna1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 10(38)14Section 14711Section 143(3)6Section 685Penny Stock5Addition to Income5Section 1484Section 153C4Long Term Capital Gains4Section 143(2)

NARENDRA DEVAKINANDAN HARLALKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1089/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1089/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 68

stock exchange after paying the requisite STT have been treated as genuine transaction entitled for claim under section 10(38). :-3-: ITA. No:1089/Chny/2019 7. The learned assessing officer as well as the CIT(A) erred in relying on a certain pattern of bogus claim which is totally irrelevant to facts of the appellants case. The learned lower authorities erred

MINAL SHROFF,RS PURAM TAMILNADU vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD -2(3), COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

3
Section 142(1)3
Reopening of Assessment2
ITA 2424/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

stock\nmarket has been routed through his company via M/s.Waltare Investment\nPvt. Ltd., to which he didn't give any satisfactory replies”. Thus,\naccording to the AO, the purchaser is exit-provider and the price rise of\nthe shares are not justified, since it shows variation from Rs.10/- in FY\n2013-14 and Rs.16.05 in the next year and later

MANJU BAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(3), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 973/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal(JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 50C

disallowing the appellants claim of Long-Term Capital Gain under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act and assessed the income from purchase and sale of shares under the head unexplained credits. 4. The learned CIT(A)-10 ought to have seen that in the case of the appellant the transaction of purchase and sale of shares are fully

SHAH A. ANANDHKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD- 5(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1710/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1710/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shah A Anand Kumar, Income Tax Officer, No.30/2, Flowers Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Ward-5(2), Chennai-600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Aelpa7544N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.J.Saravanan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.J.Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 68Section 69C

stock companies. Addition of Rs.1,81,764/- u/s 69C was in respect of disallowance of alleged commission payment to the entry providers. The impugned additions were made by the Ld.AO for want of any submission and details by the Page - 2 - of 6 assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has also confirmed

NEELARAJ VINOTH,PERAMBALUR vs. ACIT, CC-2, , TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2119/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Neelaraj Vinoth, Income Tax, V. 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -2, Perambalur – 621 212, Trichy. Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, Assistant Commissioner Of 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, V. Income Tax, Perambalur – 621 212, Central Circle -2, Tamilnadu. Trichy. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 234A

disallowed by intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 29.12.2017. (vi) The appellant then filed a revised ROI on 10.02.2018 again claiming the TDS refund 6.3.5 Now the issue before the undersigned is whether the said loose sheet ring sl. No. 2 seized during the course of search, which revealed about the transaction of the appellant with SEBI

MR. MURUGAN KARTHIK MEIYAPPAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(6), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2184/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A )*For Respondent: Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 15HSection 234BSection 250

penny stock transactions involving premeditated price rigging and systematic tax evasion through exempt long-term capital gains. In the present case, the issue relates to derivative transactions executed on a recognised exchange platform, and no material has been brought on record to establish that the assessee was a beneficiary of any accommodation entry scheme. 22. Further, the pendency of appeal

MUTHUSAMY SHANMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.362/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Muthusamy Shanmugam, The Income Tax Officer, C/O.Ramesh & Ramachandran, Cas Vs. Ward-2(2), New No.39, Old No.29/3, Chennai. Viswanathapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Dghps-7897-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 69

penny stock, without any fresh tangible material to substantiate the investment made in stock / derivative by the appellant. e) The Ld. AO erred in reopening the assessment w/s.147 of the Act after the expiry of four years, when the appellant had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment as prescribed in 1% proviso to section

R. SHOBHA LODHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CROP. WARD 9(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1072/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

disallowed the claim of exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act as claimed by assessee. For this, assessee has raised various grounds, which are argumentative, exhaustive and factual, hence need not be reproduced. 4. Brief facts are that the assessee an individual filed her return of income for the relevant assessment year 2016-17 on 24.03.2018. The ITO received information from

MR. SUNIL KUMAR RANKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON-CORPORATE WARD-6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Mr. Sunil Kumar Ranka, The Ito, Flat No.5D Prince Paradise Apt., Ncw-6(1), 75 Jermiah Road, Chennai. Vepery, Chennai-600 007. [Pan: Abcps 0212 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10(38)

penny stock, he was pleased to hold that the LTCG was nothing but bogus gain; and was pleased to add the entire sale value of Rs.11,46,790/- as income of the assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’ and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Mr. Sunil Kumar Ranka :: 4 :: 5. Aggrieved, the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. MS DAR PARADISE PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CA
Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

penny on these days. 6.20 The AO has treated the cash deposited in the banks during the demonetization period in demonetized currency as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act although the nature and source of the cash deposits being proceeds arising out of cash sales etc. is patently evident from the entries in the audited books of account