BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchases are treated as bogus, there is no point in restricting it to a\ncertain percentage and a disallowance of 100% should be done.\n5.2 Following the decision in the cases discussed above it is held that the profits\nshown from Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.27,87,561/- on a penny stock

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus LTCG as alleged, in any such investigation\nproceedings. It was alleged that these persons whose statements were recorded were\ninvolved in providing LTCG through a number of shell companies commonly known\nas penny stock companies. At this juncture, kind attention of hon'ble bench is invited\nto the fact that the assessee had neither made transactions of purchases

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

Stock Brokers Private Limited [Supra] had observed as\nunder:-\n\"Section 147 authorizes and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess\nincome chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any\n assessment year has escaped assessment. The word reason in the phrase reason\nto believe would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Bogus penny stocks capital gains: Section 131 statement implicating the assessee is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee when the documentary evidence in the form of contract notes, bank statements, STT payments, etc. prove genuine purchase

KARUNA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 2(1), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

stock market. It is further worth mentioning that purchase of the shares of these companies is not made by public but by the bogus entities which are referred to as exit providers. So firstly, the unaccounted money of the beneficiaries is routed to the bogus entities normally exit providers and the shares held by the beneficiaries are bought by these

AGRASEN PRIMSES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Penny Stock\nCompany has not been defined in the act. There was no ban in purchasing\nand selling of Turbotech, Global Infratech and SRK Ind. at the time when\nthe assessee entered into purchase and sale transactions. Copies of their\nstatements were not provided to the assessee. Statements were taken at the\nback of assessee. The assessee was not aware

SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

bogus, not genuine and with an intention to buy an accommodation entry of exempt STCG to evade the legitimate tax Tiäbility ultimately. It is held that the aforesaid transactions of purchase of penny stock

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus capital gain/loss through penny stocks and cases of accommodation entries, or Where mandated by a Court's directions, or i. j. Writ matters, or k. Matters related to wealth tax, fringe benefit tax, equalization levy and any matter other than the Income Tax Act, or l. In respect of litigation arising out of disputes related to TDS/TCS matters

ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR vs. SMT. SHAKUNTALA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the department is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchased and sold shares is a penny stock company which is used for providing entries for bogus long-term capital

SHRI RUPAL JAIAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

Bogus LTCG/STCL through BSE listed Penny Stock. 6. We have heard learned Counsels of both the sides, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. On going through the facts of the case, we have noted that though the assessee has shown purchase

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

penny stock company. The conclusion drawn by Investigation\nDirectorate, Kolkata in no way implicates the assessee. It is a finding of the\nDirectorate qua the company, M/s Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. It does not prove that\nevery one who has dealt with the shares of this company has generated bogus\nLTCG.\niv) The assessee has purchased

TARA SONI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders\nas to cost

penny stock. The shares\nwere purchased in physical form but on stock exchange. Thus the shares were\npurchased through stock exchange only and the shares were of a company which\nwas listed and were purchased through a registered broker and both the company\nand brokers were regulated by SEBI. The bill was having all the particulars as\nsuggested by SEBI

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

penny stock company.\nThe\nconclusion drawn by Investigation Directorate, Kolkata in no way\nimplicates the assessee. It is a finding of the Directorate qua the\ncompany, M/s Bakra Pratishthan Ltd. It does not prove that every one\nwho has dealt with the shares of this company has generated bogus\nLTCG.\niv) The assessee has purchased

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

penny stocks: Reliance by AO on statements recorded by the Investigation Wing to conclude that the capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice as held in CCE Vs Andaman Timber Industries 127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIDHUSHI KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus LTCG through penny stock transactions involving HPC Biosciences Limited.\n2. Unsubstantiated Source of FDR Investments\n• The assessee claimed the source of FDR investments was the sale proceeds of shares. However, the supporting documents lacked clarity and consistency:\n• No concrete evidence was provided to establish the genuineness of the share transactions.\n• The demat account and bank statements

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

stock. It was, therefore, not a case of bogus\npurchase, but the inference can only be that it is an unproved purchase. In such\na case, the approach of the Tribunal that a reasonable disallowance for possible\ninflation could be warranted, has to be upheld.”\nRecently the Gujrat High Court in Judgement reported

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penny stocks: Reliance by AO on statements recorded by the Investigation Wing to conclude that the capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice as held in CCE Vs Andaman Timber Industries 127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus penny stocks. The brokers, mediators and\ncompanies whose shares were dealt with found non-existent on inquiries. The\nsummons was unserved and offices were closed. Assessee could not satisfy the\nburden lay upon him\n8.33 to 8.35 It is in this context that the issue of circumstantial evidences and\npreponderance of probabilities as emphasized for the purposes of Income

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

penny stocks: Reliance by AO on statements recorded by the Investigation Wing to conclude that the capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice as held in CCE Vs Andaman Timber Industries 127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase