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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penny stock and claimed bogus loss, since shares were purchased online and payments were made through banking channel and AO had no evidence

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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