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

68 of the Act and unjustifiably and independently holding that the purported transactions of acquisition and sale of shares of certain companies which have resulted in the impugned long-term capital gain are, allegedly, sham. (3) That the order dated 29-12-2017 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 23, New Delhi

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

68 of the Act and unjustifiably and independently holding that the purported transactions of acquisition and sale of shares of certain companies which have resulted in the impugned long-term capital gain are, allegedly, sham. (3) That the order dated 29-12-2017 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 23, New Delhi

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

68 of the Act and unjustifiably and independently holding that the purported transactions of acquisition and sale of shares of certain companies which have resulted in the impugned long-term capital gain are, allegedly, sham. (3) That the order dated 29-12-2017 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 23, New Delhi

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

68 of the Act and unjustifiably and independently holding that the purported transactions of acquisition and sale of shares of certain companies which have resulted in the impugned long-term capital gain are, allegedly, sham. (3) That the order dated 29-12-2017 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 23, New Delhi

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 stock under purview of unexplained cash under section 68 of the Act. 18. Sanjay Kaul vs. PCIT (2020) 199 taxmann.com

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

penny stock without establishing the assessee's involvement in manipulative activities. Without material to substantiate non-genuine transactions, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "10(38)", "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "69A", "69C", "68

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

stock exchange and bringing to tax as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act. 2 2. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in concluding without any basis that appellant has introduced his unaccounted income in the form of Short Term Capital Loss by manipulating the 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

section 68 etc does not apply to sale of shares and that too sans credit in books of account maintained by assessee; v) To restore returned income vi) Any other appropriate relief” Excerpts from the Assessment Order: 3. The assessee is an individual and during the relevant year, the assessee is house wife only earn interest income on FDRs

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 to the tune of ₹ 5,643,000 zero 84/– and this amount had not been offered for taxation in the return of income. 7. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of the appellant and perused the assessment order. The case was rural upon by the appellant were also gone through. In this regard

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

Section 68, the primary onus lies upon the assessee to prove the nature and source of credit. Here, in this case, the nature has been stated to be share application money which has been duly allotted by the assessee company to the subscribing company for which all the documentary evidences, including from ROC has been filed. The source of credit

ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU JAIN, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 68 in relation to sale of share of ETTL branded as ‘penny stock’ and alleged that the CIT(A) has failed

BHARAT JHA-HUF,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-37(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 68 of the Act. 5. The above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to one anotehr. 6. The appellant may be allowed to add/withdraw or amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. The facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the assessee had filed return of income on 19.03.2014 declaring

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.

68 of the I. T. Act, 1961?" 2. We have considered the impugned order with the assistance of the learned Counsels and we have no reason to interfere. There is a finding of fact by the Tribunal that the transaction of purchase and sale of the shares of the alleged penny stock of shares of Ramkrishna Fincap

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.

68 of the I. T. Act, 1961?" 2. We have considered the impugned order with the assistance of the learned Counsels and we have no reason to interfere. There is a finding of fact by the Tribunal that the transaction of purchase and sale of the shares of the alleged penny stock of shares of Ramkrishna Fincap

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 in exchange of the shares of private limited company. The modus operandi of conversion of unaccounted money in long term capital gain was examined by the AO before coming to the conclusion. The AO has also examined die balance sheets of Mahavir Advanced Remedies Ltd., and the balalnce sheet and profit and loss account for the last

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.29,71,941/-. 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 addition made

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.29,71,941/-. 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 addition made

ANUSHA MAHESHWARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 39(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

penny stocks and taxability of the sale consideration under Section 68 of the Act r.w. Section 115BBE of the Act as per the directions