Search: bogus purchases | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

268 results for “bogus purchases”+ Penny Stockclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai785 Delhi268 Kolkata197 Chennai165 Ahmedabad140 Jaipur128 Indore78 Chandigarh61 Pune51 Hyderabad47 Calcutta45 Bangalore36 Surat34 Guwahati31 Rajkot24 Lucknow23 Cuttack23 Raipur16 Nagpur14 Ranchi14 Visakhapatnam10 Amritsar9 Jodhpur8 Patna7 Varanasi5 Telangana2 Gauhati1 Jabalpur1 Panaji1 Agra1

Key Topics

Section 10(38)120 Section 6895 Addition to Income76 Long Term Capital Gains64 Penny Stock63 Section 14759 Section 143(3)54 Section 26340 Exemption39 Capital Gains

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

penny stock and claimed bogus\nloss, since shares were purchased online and payments were made through\nbanking channel and AO had no evidence

SURESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8703/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 268 · Page 1 of 14

...

38

Bogus/Accommodation Entry31

ITAT Delhi

29 Jun 2020

AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2011-12 Appellant Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal The Assistant Commissioner Of 154, Deepali Enclave Vs. Income Tax Pitampura Central Circle -25 New Delhi New Delhi Pan :- Abvpk1318H ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Date Of Hearing 17-06-2020 Date Of Order 29.06.2020 Present For Assessee Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate Present For Income Tax Department :- Shri Saras Kumar Senior Departmental Representative O R D E R

Section 143Section 148Section 68

penny stock makes manipulation of the share price very easy. 3. From the perusal of the information data, it is observed that Shri SureshKumar Agarwal [ PAN: ABVPK1318H] is one of the beneficiaries, who booked bogus long-term capital gain. The detail of such transaction is annexed and is part of the satisfaction note. 4. From the transaction given

NEERAJ SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1485/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

purchased from the shareholders of a dormant company. They are usually a group of 4-5 individuals who also referred to as Syndicate Members and are sometimes also referred to as Operators, Their nominees are directors of the Penny Stock companies which is indirectly controlled by them through such dummy directors. The whole operation is managed by them. They

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1414/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

purchased from the shareholders of a dormant company. They are usually a group of 4-5 individuals who also referred to as Syndicate Members and are sometimes also referred to as Operators, Their nominees are directors of the Penny Stock companies which is indirectly controlled by them through such dummy directors. The whole operation is managed by them. They

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1412/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

purchased from the shareholders of a dormant company. They are usually a group of 4-5 individuals who also referred to as Syndicate Members and are sometimes also referred to as Operators, Their nominees are directors of the Penny Stock companies which is indirectly controlled by them through such dummy directors. The whole operation is managed by them. They

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1482/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

purchased from the shareholders of a dormant company. They are usually a group of 4-5 individuals who also referred to as Syndicate Members and are sometimes also referred to as Operators, Their nominees are directors of the Penny Stock companies which is indirectly controlled by them through such dummy directors. The whole operation is managed by them. They

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1476/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

purchased from the shareholders of a dormant company. They are usually a group of 4-5 individuals who also referred to as Syndicate Members and are sometimes also referred to as Operators, Their nominees are directors of the Penny Stock companies which is indirectly controlled by them through such dummy directors. The whole operation is managed by them. They

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1413/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

purchased from the shareholders of a dormant company. They are usually a group of 4-5 individuals who also referred to as Syndicate Members and are sometimes also referred to as Operators, Their nominees are directors of the Penny Stock companies which is indirectly controlled by them through such dummy directors. The whole operation is managed by them. They

KRISHNA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 38(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 6356/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

bogus capital gains through transactions in Penny Stocks: i) Pune ITAT:- Rejects capital-gains claim on 'penny stock' sale; Disregards paper-trail through contract-notes. 21 Krishan Devi Pune ITAT upheld undisclosed income addition for sale proceeds received by assessee-individual on sale of shares & rejected asessee's short term capital gains ['STCG'] claim for AY 2006- 07: Based

GAURAV AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60 (5 ), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1234/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D. R

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

purchase as genuine, the sales, given the high rates for such penny stocks, with no real buyers, are bogus. Coming

SANJAY KAUL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1593/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 70

purchasing a stock. However, the analysis show a very different picture. The investor has only invested in High Risk Stocks only, which during the investigation were found to be penny stocks, a scheme hatched by various players to obtain/provide accommodation entry of bogus

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 747/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 69C

purchase not reported to the stock exchange and that the shares belonged to a penny stock company, with no credentials, and selling rates were artificially hiked, with no real buyers. On facts, the Tribunal held that inference of sales being bogus

BHARAT JHA-HUF,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-37(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6834/DEL/2019[2013+-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 148Section 250Section 68

penny stock and they used this scrip for providing bogus LTCG to various beneficiaries. In view of the above, the above transactions of purchase

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9504/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

penny stock being used for obtaining bogus Long Term Capital Gain. NO evidence of actual sale except the contract notes issued by the share broker were produced by the assessee. No question of law, therefore arises in the present case and the consistent finding of fact returned against the Appellant are based on evidence on record. 9. In the aforesaid

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. MAHAVIR SINGHAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3428/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito Vs. Mahavir Singhal Delhi 149, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-34 Pan No.Aixps8088B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.411/D/2025 (In Ita No.3428/Del/2024) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mahavir Singhal Vs. Ito 149, Tarun Enclave, Delhi Pitampura, Delhi-34 Pan No.Aixps8088B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 142Section 143Section 69C

bogus LTCG through penny stock shares of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd amounting to Rs. 49,45,330/- during the FY 2013-14 by ignoring the fact that assessee failed to produce the evidence and supporting documents to substantiate its claim in reply dated 26.12.2016 that investment was made on the basis of some expert reports, studies and news

ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU JAIN, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7623/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

penny stocks. The AO has also relied upon various judicial pronouncements in this regard. Accordingly, the AO denied the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and treated the alleged sale consideration of shares of Rs. 3,52,07,470/- as bogus and held the said amount as ' .unexplained credit and the same was added to total income

PUESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. PR. CIT, CENTRAL-3, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: \nNoneFor Respondent: \nSh. Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

purchase and sales of shares of a penny stock company\ndubious in nature. The report from the Investigation Wing has clearly\nidentified M/s Yamini Investment Co. Ltd. as a penny stock company which\nis engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries in the garb\nof bogus

ARCHIT GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2625/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 151Section 250

penny stock transactions and companies to whom sold shares belonged were bogus in nature. The Tribunal observing that assessee by submitting records of purchase

ARCHIT GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2624/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 151Section 250

penny stock transactions and companies to whom sold shares belonged were bogus in nature. The Tribunal observing that assessee by submitting records of purchase

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

ITA 1518/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain & Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

penny stock of income tax department used to book bogus LTCG, ld. Counsel submitted that merely mention of name of share would not make a genuine transaction, bogus.Ld. Counsel contended that no independent inquiries were conducted by the ld. AO either from SEBI of stock exchange or broker or CTL to arrive at the adverse conclusion which is mechanical