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

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

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

reassessment when there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee which is evident from the original assessment order dated 29.09.2017 passed u/s 143(3). 6. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 13,00,561/-made by the assessing officer as undisclosed business income vide para no. 3 of the assessment order

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