RITU 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

penny stock companies is bogus and taxable.” The reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124. 30. The AO observed that in the assessee’s case, it had been established that the assessee indulged in sham transactions to receive back his unaccounted

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

penny stock companies is bogus and taxable.” The reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124. 30. The AO observed that in the assessee’s case, it had been established that the assessee indulged in sham transactions to receive back his unaccounted

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

penny stock companies is bogus and taxable.” The reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124. 30. The AO observed that in the assessee’s case, it had been established that the assessee indulged in sham transactions to receive back his unaccounted

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

penny stock companies is bogus and taxable.” The reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124. 30. The AO observed that in the assessee’s case, it had been established that the assessee indulged in sham transactions to receive back his unaccounted

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

stock penny amounting to ₹ 5,643,000 zero 84/– for financial year 2010 – 11 corresponding to assessment year 2011 – 12. Accordingly, unaccounted long- term capital gain (LTC) of ₹ 56,43,000 zero 84 is added to the income of the assessee. {Addition of Rs 56,43,084}” 29. When the appeal was referred before the learned CIT – A, he also

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)

Penny stock companies, the entry operators who managed the dummy companies involved in price rigging. The money trial of transactions was also examined and, in a large number of transactions trial right frcm cash deposit account to the beneficiaries account was unearthed. As a result of investigation 11 1 Individuals who have been taken such entry of bogus LTCG amounting

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

penny stocks, the AO had correctly concluded that the assessee entered into a prearranged sham transaction so as to convert unaccounted money into accounted money in guise of capital loss and therefore the alleged short term capital loss was rightly disallowed

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

stock exchange, and there was no evidence that assessee had paid cash in return of receipt through cheque Tribunal rightly deleted addition holding that transactions were genuine. Pr. CIT v. Sandipkumar Parsottambhai Patel (2023) 457 ITR 368 (Guj.) 6) Where AO disallowed loss claimed by assessee on sale of shares on ground that assessee traded in shares of penny

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

penny stocks so much so she made above mentioned investments as a regular investor in order to buy the shares of such script. n. The assessee bought the share at a rock bottom price and exited near the peak of the scrip price curve. o. In the replies, the assessee has mainly contended that since sale were made through exchange

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

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

penny stock company and the shares of M/S Kailash Auto finance Limited have been used to provide entry of bogus LTCG and bogus Short Term Capital Loss to various beneficiaries as per their requirement. 9 Q-29, During the course of Survey operation u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 19-05-2015 at the office

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. DINESH GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

stock will invest in such penny scrip which is defunct and in-operative. The AO has discussed the business activity of the company that the income earning is very low. The company is in education business to readymade garments and trading of sarees. The AO has also reproduced the relevant questions of the statements of Sh. Bhagwan Das Aggarwal

ITO, WARD- 28(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHIVANI GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

stock will invest in such penny scrip which is defunct and in-operative. The AO has discussed the business activity of the company that the income earning is very low. The company is in education business to readymade garments and trading of sarees. The AO has also reproduced the relevant questions of the statements of Sh. Bhagwan Das Aggarwal

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