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

prices of alleged penny stocks, the results of investigations/enquiries carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department across the ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 country, the orders passed by various other statutory bodies including the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the statements of the so called Dummy Directors

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

prices of alleged penny stocks, the results of investigations/enquiries carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department across the ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 country, the orders passed by various other statutory bodies including the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the statements of the so called Dummy Directors

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

prices of alleged penny stocks, the results of investigations/enquiries carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department across the ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 country, the orders passed by various other statutory bodies including the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the statements of the so called Dummy Directors

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

prices of alleged penny stocks, the results of investigations/enquiries carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department across the ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 country, the orders passed by various other statutory bodies including the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the statements of the so called Dummy Directors

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

prices of alleged penny stocks, the results of investigations/enquiries carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department across the ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 country, the orders passed by various other statutory bodies including the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the statements of the so called Dummy Directors

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

price of the stock exchange has been done by the entry operators providing long-term capital gain to the beneficiaries. In such report of investigation wing there was a direct name of the assessee was found to be a beneficiary dealing in the company which has been mentioned in the information as a penny stock company and assessee has obtained

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 company controlled by them. These si transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

transfer forms.\nThe transaction of purchase of shares could not be cross verified. The shares\nof the company was declared as \"Penny Stock\" by SEBI and the broker Sanju\nKabra, through whom the shares were sold by the assessee was Indicted for\nmanipulating the prices

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

The appeal is allowed

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

prices were manipulated, Accordingly he held that the STCG brought into books was nothing but income from undisclosed sources, it was noted that assessee had claimed huge STCG of Rs. 22 lakh in respect of penny stock purchased for a paltry sum of Rs. 75,000/, further noted that broker from whom assessee purchased the shares was visited with

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

prices were manipulated, Accordingly he held that the STCG brought into books was nothing but income from undisclosed sources. It was noted that assessee had claimed huge STCG of Rs. 22 lakh in respect of penny stock purchased for a paltry sum of Rs. 75,000/, further noted that broker from whom assessee purchased the shares was visited with

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 stocks, the price band had been reduced to the lowest band of 2 percent. Interim orders were also passed by SEBI giving a finding that price was rigged. m) Statement of Sh Sunil Dokania S/o Sh Gajadhar Dokania was recorded on 12.06.2015 on oath by the DDIT (Inv), Unit-1(2), Kolkata wherein Sh Sunil Dokania admitted that

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

prices have been artificially rigged by the group of operators to accommodate beneficiaries seeking LTCG or STCL. He apprehended that no prudent business man and particularly trader or investor in 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

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

prices have been artificially rigged by the group of operators to accommodate beneficiaries seeking LTCG or STCL. He apprehended that no prudent business man and particularly trader or investor in 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

HALDOR TOPSOE (I) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

stock of goods traded’ Hence, it is evident from the above that assessee is not providing services and is engaged in sales primarily as such. Hence, this company can’t be considered as a suitable comparable.” (2.10.8) IOT Design & Engineering The TPO rejected this comparable, stating : “It is submitted that this company is failing service income filter whereas Form 23ACA

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

stock exchange. They have also shown the forward market commission membership numbers, on their bills/contract notes their permanent account number is also submitted. The contract note shows order number, trade number, trade time, quantity, rate , value, and total of the brokerage charges. It also shows in which commodity assessee has transacted. Therefore, before us assessee has submitted a detail

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. Further, it is fact on purchase and sale price in the market. The assessee has purchased the shares directly from the company and through share transfer

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. Further, it is fact on purchase and sale price in the market. The assessee has purchased the shares directly from the company and through share transfer

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

penny stock. Further, it is fact on record that the financials of the company are not commensurate with the purchase and sale price in the market. The assessee has purchased the shares directly from the company and through share transfer