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 cases rather than linking the same to the facts of the present case. Against the same, the present appeal is filed before this Hon’ble Bench. RE: SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. Now having stated the brief facts and the history of the case, in this regard, the legal submissions of the appellant are as under: 1. SUBMISSIONS

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 cases rather than linking the same to the facts of the present case. Against the same, the present appeal is filed before this Hon’ble Bench. RE: SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. Now having stated the brief facts and the history of the case, in this regard, the legal submissions of the appellant are as under: 1. SUBMISSIONS

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 as scrupulous transection, without having any conclusive evidence or facts is immaterial and bad in law. 52. Based on the above binding precedents it is humbly submitted that the initiation of impugned reassessment

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 as scrupulous transection, without having any conclusive evidence or facts is immaterial and bad in law. 52. Based on the above binding precedents it is humbly submitted that the initiation of impugned reassessment

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)

penny stock transaction, reassessment proceedings were initiated and notice u/s.148 was issued. According to AO the price of share of M/s Kailash

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)

reassessment proceedings and proceeded to obtain the approval from competent authority. Accordingly, after obtaining approval, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act (in short ‘the Act’) and served on the assessee. Accordingly, Piyush Kumar vs. ITO notices u/s 142 & 143(2) were issued and served on the assessee calling for information relating to the details of share purchased and sold

R.D. VOHRA HUF,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 165 days in filing\nappeal and appeal of assessee are allowed

penny stocks. The CIT(A) found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act was unsustainable due to factual inaccuracies in the reasons recorded. Consequently, the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under Section 263, which was based on the flawed Section

VIKAS MALU,UAE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 817/Del/2023 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

reassessment order dated 22/02/2022 was framed at Rs. 5,80,52,040/-. 5. In the re-assessment order, the AO narrated the abnormal increase in the price of the share sold qua the poor financial health of the company. It was observed by the AO that the Networth and business activity of Esteem Bio are negligible and alleged that

VIKAS MALU,UAE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 817/Del/2023 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

reassessment order dated 22/02/2022 was framed at Rs. 5,80,52,040/-. 5. In the re-assessment order, the AO narrated the abnormal increase in the price of the share sold qua the poor financial health of the company. It was observed by the AO that the Networth and business activity of Esteem Bio are negligible and alleged that

JAGDISH MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), JHANDEWALAN

penny stocks.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were based on incorrect facts and suspicion, and that no proper inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the entire reassessment

A. T. INVOFIN PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 26, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14]

penny stock. (reference para 6.13 page 57 of Id. CIT(A) During the course of hearing the Hon'ble member raised a query regarding calculation of Long Term Capital Loss. This issue has also been raised by the assessee before he Ld. CIT(A) as per ground no 5. The Ld.CIT(A) had adjudicated the same by directing

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penny stock by the income tax department, it does not mean all the transactions carried out in that scrip would be bogus. So many investors enter the capital market just to make it a chance by investing their surplus monies. They also end up with making investment in certain scrips based on market information and try to exit

SHOBHIT GUPTA ,DELHI vs. ACIT CETNTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penny stock by the income tax department, it does not mean all the transactions carried out in that scrip would be bogus. So many investors enter the capital market just to make it a chance by investing their surplus monies. They also end up with making investment in certain scrips based on market information and try to exit

ACIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DECENT FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) Challenging Both

penny stock income and added an amount of Rs.3,46,569/- as commission paid. Penalty proceedings were also started on this. 4. Assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) challenging both the validity of reopening as well as merits of the case. Ld. CIT (A) after discussing elaborately held that the reassessment

JCIT(OSD), JHANDEWALAN vs. NARENDRA AGGARWAL, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwaljcit (Osd), Jhandewalan, Vs. Narendra Aggarwal, Delhi H.No. 467, Sector-21-A, Fardidabad, Haryana (Pan: Aagpa1441D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv., Saksham Agarwal, Ca & Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Order : 19.12.2025 O R D E R Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

penny stock has come to finality. However, as said, the appellant has taken a number of grounds challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act. He has relied on several decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court to support its claim So, before deciding the grounds on merit, the technical grounds

NEHA GOEL,FARIDABAD vs. PCIT , FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

penny stock by M/s Blueprint Securities Ltd. during the F.Y. 2013-14 for Rs. 22,01,760/- which is not correct. The Assessee has earned long term capital from sale of the Unno Industries Ltd. He further submitted that all these facts were available before the AO in the return of income filed by the assessee and has not recorded

LATE SHRI SOM PRAKASH SETHI ( THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MR. AMAN SETHI),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CRICLE-28(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Late Shri Som Prakash Sethi Vs Acit, (Through Legal Heir Mr. Aman Circle-28(1), Sethi), S-541, Greater Kailash New Delhi. Part-Ii, South Delhi, New Delhi-110048. Pan-Abyps3902L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Akash Ojha, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawri, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025 Order

penny stock was explained and it was stated that there was involvement of multi intermediaries and with the help of such intermediaries, there were significant jump in the price of shares of these scripts. The AO reproduced the extracts of the report of Investigation Wing in the assessment order which starts from pages 3 to 89 of the order thereafter

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ARUN KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

penny stock company by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department which was used for such purpose. The sale of equity shares to the M/s City Travel Solution Ltd. by the assessee is bogus sale to claim the Long Term Capital gain. 6. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has duly declared the STCG