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

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

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

penny stock amounting to ₹ 5643085/– for F Y 2010 – 11 corresponding to AY 2011 – 12. Thus, the above sum was added to the income of the assessee. The returned income of the assessee of ₹ 7 422010/– was assessed at ₹ 1 3065094/–. 11. Aggrieved by the order of the learned assessing officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner

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. 22 Krishan Devi iii) Very recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 1TA No. 49/2018 pronounced on 17.01.2019 in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. NDR Promotors Pvt. Ltd. almost similar circumstances held that "we have no hesitation in holding that the transactions in questions were clearly sham and make belief with excellent paper work to camouflage their

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.1,28,58,450/-. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and raised grounds of appeal as well as filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions, ld. CIT (A) sustained the additions

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.1,28,58,450/-. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and raised grounds of appeal as well as filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions, ld. CIT (A) sustained the additions

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

penny stocks” and the assessee had claimed exempt income in respect of long-term capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Act to the extent of ₹50,36,186/- and as per the information available, the same was believed to be unaccounted income of the assessee, which had not been offered to tax. 10. We have heard the counsel

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

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