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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

penny stock from the Investigation Wing, he disallowed the same u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.1

JYOTI 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 Sudhir Pareek

penny stock from the Investigation Wing, he disallowed the same u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.1

RACHNA 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 (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

penny stock from the Investigation Wing, he disallowed the same u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.29

RACHNA 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 (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

penny stock from the Investigation Wing, he disallowed the same u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.29

ANJALI GUPTA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -1(2), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Ms. Anjali Gupta, Ito, Ward-1(2), A-84, Summit, Dlf City-5, Gurgaon, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Vs Haryana Pan-Aaipg5132F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Stock Exchange. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition by misinterpreting the financials of the companies whose shares were sold by the assessee. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts

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 cannot be a basis to make addition. xi) No addition can be made on the basis of adverse material, when neither such purported material was shown nor referred and confronted or supplied to the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. xii) No opportunity was afforded to assessee to cross examine the purported statements

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 cannot be a basis to make addition. xi) No addition can be made on the basis of adverse material, when neither such purported material was shown nor referred and confronted or supplied to the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. xii) No opportunity was afforded to assessee to cross examine the purported statements

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

penny stock and 2 Udita Gupta vs. ACIT disallowed the claim making addition u/s 68 of the Act which was sustained

PIYUSH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Penny Stock. After considering the written submission uploaded on 26/03/2022, he rejected the same with the observations in para 18 of his order and finally he came to the conclusion that the assessee had utilized his unaccounted money through his broker/operator/promoter/exit provider who had facilitated the transaction by price rigging in order to earn Long Term Capital Piyush Kumar

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Gyan Prakash Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(4), B-189, Yojna Vihar, New Delhi – 2 New Delhi – 92 (Pan: Adupg2697N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penny stock companies. The authorities found that though the shares were purchased by the assessee at Rs.5.50 Ps. Per share and Rs.4/per share from the two companies in the year 2003, the assessee was able to sell the shares just within a years time at Rs.486.55 Ps and Rs.485.65 Ps per share. The broker through whom the shares were sold

SURESH ASRANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 35(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt Diva Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 10(38) at Rs. 1,68,29,438/- in respect of long-term capital gain earned on sale of listed equity shares sold through recognized stock exchange which has duly been subjected to security transaction tax (S.T.T.). 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred

SUNITA SARDA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 71(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansunita Sarda, Vs. Acit, Circle 71 (1), 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanps7143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 06.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,000/-. The Department Has Received Information From Office Of Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (3), New Delhi On 06.03.2018 That The Assessee Has Taken Bogus Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.17,25,000/- During Fy 2010-11 By Trading In The Penny Scrip I.E. M/S. Global Capital

penny stock of shares of Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd. ("RFL") is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax ("SIT") has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come

GENERAL MOTORS TECHNICAL CENTRE INDIA PVT LTD,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE, 1(1) , GURUGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansunita Sarda, Vs. Acit, Circle 71 (1), 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanps7143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 06.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,000/-. The Department Has Received Information From Office Of Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (3), New Delhi On 06.03.2018 That The Assessee Has Taken Bogus Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.17,25,000/- During Fy 2010-11 By Trading In The Penny Scrip I.E. M/S. Global Capital

penny stock of shares of Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd. ("RFL") is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax ("SIT") has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaudita Gupta, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 29, 43/1, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. Delhi – 110 054. (Pan : Advpa9481B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman, Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-30, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Case Of The Assessee Was Picked Up For Limited Scrutiny & During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee’S Claim Of Earning Capital Gain Amounting To Rs.57,11,085/- & Rs.46,95,755/- From Sale Of Shares Of M/S Yamini Investment Pvt. Ltd. & M/S. Goenka Business & Finance Ltd. Totaling Rs.1,04,06,840/- Were Examined. The Assessing Officer

penny stock and disallowed the claim making addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which was sustained by Ld. CIT(A). 3. Aggrieved

NAZ SHAZIA,MORADABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1), MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnaz Shazia, Vs. Ito, Anwar House, Ground Ward-1(1), Floor, Pandit Nagla Mini Moradabad Bye Pass Road, Moradabad Pan: Bbwps217R Assessee By : Shri V. K. Tulsian, Ca Revenue By: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/01/2024

disallowance of exemption of Rs.38,55,696/- being the long term capital gain arising on transfer of shares in Kailash Auto Finance Ltd; under section 10(38) of the I T Act. Naz Shazia 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

KAPIL CHHABRA,MORADABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Yr: 2014-15

penny stock by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. iv. The fact about rigging in share price was confirmed by SEBI also. 3.11 The appellant has mentioned that the report of Investigation Wing was general and did not concern with his case. No allegation is made against him in the report. This plea of the appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. MANISH AGARWAL AMD SONS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-2(1), Vs. Manish Agarwal & Sons, 201-202, 2Nd Floor, Ghaziabad Near Purani Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad Up (Pan: Aaahm9417M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr . Respondent By : Sh. Amit Rai, Ca

disallowed. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) held that as no evidence was brought on record to show that M/s CCL International Ltd. deals in penny stock

AJAY KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

penny stock or the company, a paper company and that orders passed by SEBI pronounce it so. In his support, the assessee has adduced a copy of order dated 06.04.2016 passed by SEBI in the case of CCL International Limited. The document filed by the assessee has been carefully examined. It is seen that the order of SEBI being relied