SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

penny stock bogus company M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited. Looking to such credible evidence on this issue, I estimate an amount equivalent to 6% of the bogus Long Term Capital Gains entry which comes to Rs.1,45,421/- (calculated on sale proceeds of Rs.24,23,696/-) as commission paid by you in lieu of entry of bogus Long Term Capital Gain

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

penny stock bogus company. Looking to such credible evidence on this issue, I estimate an amount equivalent to 6% of the bogus Long Term Capital Gain entry, which comes to Rs.29,89,956/- (calculated on the sale proceeds shown at Rs.4,98,32,608/-) as commission paid by you in lieu of entry of bogus Long Term Capital Gain

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

penny stocks. In certain cases before us it has been established that the promoters/ Directors of the penny stock companies are also involved and they allowed the entry operators to manage the affairs of the company in return of a commission paid to them. The third set of persons involved, are the share brokers. As 45 ITA No. 54 & 55/JP/2022

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

penny stocks. In certain cases before us it has been established that the promoters/ Directors of the penny stock companies are also involved and they allowed the entry operators to manage the affairs of the company in return of a commission paid to them. The third set of persons involved, are the share brokers. As 45 ITA No. 54 & 55/JP/2022

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus LTCG entries. The AO relied on the statement of Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal recorded by DDIT(Inv) Kolkatta on 30.09.2015 who has admitted about the complete procedure o pre-arranged LTCG entries and also about his involvement though his brokerage company M/s. Destiny Securities Limited. He in his statement at Q 25 confirmed about the involvement of penny stock

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus LTCG entries. The AO relied on the statement of Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal recorded by DDIT(Inv) Kolkatta on 30.09.2015 who has admitted about the complete procedure o pre-arranged LTCG entries and also about his involvement though his brokerage company M/s. Destiny Securities Limited. He in his statement at Q 25 confirmed about the involvement of penny stock

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus LTCG entries. The AO relied on the statement of Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal recorded by DDIT(Inv) Kolkatta on 30.09.2015 who has admitted about the complete procedure o pre-arranged LTCG entries and also about his involvement though his brokerage company M/s. Destiny Securities Limited. He in his statement at Q 25 confirmed about the involvement of penny stock

ACIT, C.C. -4, JAIPUR vs. MAVERICK COMMODITY BROKERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus LTCG entries. The AO relied on the statement of Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal recorded by DDIT(Inv) Kolkatta on 30.09.2015 who has admitted about the complete procedure o pre-arranged LTCG entries and also about his involvement though his brokerage company M/s. Destiny Securities Limited. He in his statement at Q 25 confirmed about the involvement of penny stock

ACIT, CC-4, , JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANSHUL JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus LTCG entries. The AO relied on the statement of Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal recorded by DDIT(Inv) Kolkatta on 30.09.2015 who has admitted about the complete procedure o pre-arranged LTCG entries and also about his involvement though his brokerage company M/s. Destiny Securities Limited. He in his statement at Q 25 confirmed about the involvement of penny stock

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

HARISH SHARMA HUF,B-1, PATODIYA MARG, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed on the report, without further corroboration on the basis of cogent material, does not justify his conclusion that the transaction is bogus, sham and nothing other than a racket of accommodation entries. We do notice that

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