SRUJITHA ANNAPAREDDY,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

penny stocks in order to convert its undisclosed income into exempt income and the last part of the reasons, the AO again concluded that the assessee has taken bogus long-term capital gains through managed trading of shares. Thus, the whole exercise shows a predetermined mind on the part of the A0 to issue notice under section 148 and complete

NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA HUF ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2011-12

penny stock companies are being used for generating bogus LTCG/STCL to specific clients. Thus, observing, the Assessing Officer treated the total investment of Rs.12,77,500/- as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act and brought it to tax. One of the grounds raised by the assessee was that the assessee was not provided with the reasons for reopening

(LATE) AUDINARAYANA REDDY ALTHURI REP.BY L/R MAHESH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

penny stock to route their\nundisclosed income by booking long term capital gains\nthrough a company M/s. Twenty First Century India\nLimited managed by Shri Anil Kumar Khemkha.\nSubsequently, a search and seizure operation under section\n132 of the Act was also conducted in the business premises\nof AMR India Limited and during the search operation, a\nstatement was recorded

RADHIKA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

penny stock to route their undisclosed income by booking Long Term Capital Gains through a company by name M/s. Twenty First Century (India) Limited managed by Sri Anil Kumar Khemka. Subsequently, a Search and Seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the business premises of M/s. AMR India Limited and residential premises of the directors

GIRISH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

penny stock to route their undisclosed income by booking Long Term Capital Gains through a company by name M/s. Twenty First Century (India) Limited managed by Sri Anil Kumar Khemka. Subsequently, a Search and Seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the business premises of M/s. AMR India Limited and residential premises of the directors

LATHA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

penny stock to route their undisclosed income by booking Long Term Capital Gains through a company by name M/s. Twenty First Century (India) Limited managed by Sri Anil Kumar Khemka. Subsequently, a Search and Seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the business premises of M/s. AMR India Limited and residential premises of the directors

MAHESH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

penny stock to route their undisclosed income by booking Long Term Capital Gains through a company by name M/s. Twenty First Century (India) Limited managed by Sri Anil Kumar Khemka. Subsequently, a Search and Seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the business premises of M/s. AMR India Limited and residential premises of the directors

PREETI GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 9(1), I.T. TOWERS, HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1174 & 1175/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Smt. Preeti Gupta Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 9(1) Pan: Abmpm7172Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

penny stock company and that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) reopened the assessment of the assessee under section 147 of the Act and issued notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2021. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 05.01.2022 declaring the same income as originally returned i.e. Rs.32,28,850/-. During

PREETI GUPTA, HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 9(1), I.T. TOWERS, HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1174 & 1175/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Smt. Preeti Gupta Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 9(1) Pan: Abmpm7172Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

penny stock company and that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) reopened the assessment of the assessee under section 147 of the Act and issued notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2021. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 05.01.2022 declaring the same income as originally returned i.e. Rs.32,28,850/-. During

JITENDER KUMAR GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2011-12

penny stocks were treated as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act accordingly added to the income returned by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the orders of the Assessing Officer and the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order

SUDHA DOSHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO - WARD 5(1), HYDERABAD

penny stock scrips through M/s. ANS Private Limited\n(supra), which transaction was not disclosed in her return of income for\nthe subject year, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act.\n4. The AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated\n28/06/2021. Subsequently, in compliance to the judgment of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessment or re-computation, as envisaged in Section 132B(1)(i) of the Act. The Appellant in this regard three orders passed by Hon’ble ITAT Benches viz., (i) ACIT Vs. Narendra N. Thacker [(2016) 45 ITR Trib 188 (Kol)]; (ii) unreported judgement in ACIT Vs. Sajjan Singh and (iii) unreported order in Arun Bansal, Delhi Vs. ACIT, Delhi