SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

penny stock as one-off investment to claim bogus exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. The AO had rightly initiated penalty u/s 271

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the unjustified ground that the top management of the Bhushan Steel Ltd (of which Appellant was Mg Director) was allegedly involved in planned and deliberate activities thereby resulting in alleged under reporting (because of alleged siphoning

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the unjustified ground that the top management of the Bhushan Steel Ltd (of which Appellant was Mg Director) was allegedly involved in planned and deliberate activities thereby resulting in alleged under reporting (because of alleged siphoning

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the unjustified ground that the top management of the Bhushan Steel Ltd (of which Appellant was Mg Director) was allegedly involved in planned and deliberate activities thereby resulting in alleged under reporting (because of alleged siphoning

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the unjustified ground that the top management of the Bhushan Steel Ltd (of which Appellant was Mg Director) was allegedly involved in planned and deliberate activities thereby resulting in alleged under reporting (because of alleged siphoning

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the unjustified ground that the top management of the Bhushan Steel Ltd (of which Appellant was Mg Director) was allegedly involved in planned and deliberate activities thereby resulting in alleged under reporting (because of alleged siphoning

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the unjustified ground that the top management of the Bhushan Steel Ltd (of which Appellant was Mg Director) was allegedly involved in planned and deliberate activities thereby resulting in alleged under reporting (because of alleged siphoning

SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA & SONS (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-35(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Subhash Chand Gupta & Ito Sons (Huf) Vs Ward – 35 (4) 43/1, Rajpura Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110054 Pan No.Aabhs2009G (Appellant) (Respondent)

penny stocks of M/s. CCL International. Relying on various decisions the Ld. DR submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) should be upheld and the ground raised by the assessee should be dismissed. 8. So far as the non striking of the inappropriate words in the penalty notice is concerned he submitted

MITESH PRAVIN VADOR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-55(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

stock exchange in which no discrepancies have been pointed out by the AO. He has submitted that it is not a case of claiming profit. He has submitted that the AO in the assessment order before levy of penalty has recorded “further, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing 5 ITA.No.1176/Del./2019 inaccurate particulars

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act to explain the transaction. The Investigation Wing has conducted detailed enquiries, made analysis of the seized / impounded documents and made analysis of beneficiaries. The report prepared contains details of complete modus operandi, 19 commission charged against accommodation entries, list of conduit companies, list of their bank accounts in the name of conduits. The said list

DEEPTY AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), MEERUT

In the result, appeals of both the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Deepty Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2) Hotel Deep, Meerut Begam Bridge, Meerut – 250001 Uttar Pradesh (Pan Aalpa7534Q) [Appellant] [Respondent] [Assessment Year: 2014-15] Charu Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2) 84, Hill Street, Meerut Meerut Cantt., Meerut Uttar Pradesh (Pan Aekpa1075R)) Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2018

penny stock and the capital gains so generated is bogus. Being frustrated by the repetitive queries of the AO the Assessee surrendered the claim of exemption and offered the entire capital gains for taxation. The assessment was completed accordingly. However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

CHARU AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), MEERUT

In the result, appeals of both the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Deepty Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2) Hotel Deep, Meerut Begam Bridge, Meerut – 250001 Uttar Pradesh (Pan Aalpa7534Q) [Appellant] [Respondent] [Assessment Year: 2014-15] Charu Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2) 84, Hill Street, Meerut Meerut Cantt., Meerut Uttar Pradesh (Pan Aekpa1075R)) Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2018

penny stock and the capital gains so generated is bogus. Being frustrated by the repetitive queries of the AO the Assessee surrendered the claim of exemption and offered the entire capital gains for taxation. The assessment was completed accordingly. However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act despite non-satisfaction of mandatory statutory ingredients and the legal unsustainability of the impugned addition.” 8 At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted detailed written submissions, which is reproduced below for the sake of brevity :- “A. Statutory ingredients of Section 68 not satisfied- Absence

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act despite non-satisfaction of mandatory statutory ingredients and the legal unsustainability of the impugned addition.” 8 At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted detailed written submissions, which is reproduced below for the sake of brevity :- “A. Statutory ingredients of Section 68 not satisfied- Absence

AMIT JINDAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 59(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16] Amit Jindal, Ito-59(3), 105, Defence Enclave, D-Block, Delhi-110092 Vs Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi -110002 Pan-Aflpj2122A Assessee Revenue

penny stock companies was not to derive income by way dividend etc. rather, to earn huge profit. d) The entry providers (as mentioned in para 6.2 above) in their statements have admitted that M/s Salasar Trading; M/s. Ganpati Enterprises; and M/s. Mahadev Traders; are the companies involved in providing accommodation entries. Thus, the above companies are exit provider

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is\ninitiated separately for failure to disclose the true particulars of\nincome as mentioned above.”\nAggrieved with the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the\nAO in computing the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.17

SHASHANK GUPTA,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2014-15 Shashank Gupta Vs Ito 3 D, Vakil Road, New Mandi, Ward 2(3) Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Muzaffarnagar. Pan No. Abypg3776C Appellant Respondent

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 2,15,500/- for concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. The AR of the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Deepti

NARENDRA KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 38(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

penalty proceedings initiated U/S See 271(1)(c) are on wholly illegal and untenable grounds since there was submission of inaccurate particulars of income, by the assessee. 21. That the aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to the one another raised herein. Prayer The appellant-assessee prays that the relief as per grounds of appeal above may kindly be allowed