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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

stocks gave rise to huge capital gains in a short period does not mean that the transaction is “bogus” if the documentation and evidences cannot be faulted. Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Bogus capital gains from penny

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

stocks gave rise to huge capital gains in a short period does not mean that the transaction is “bogus” if the documentation and evidences cannot be faulted. Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) (Caselaws Paper Book Pages 85-93) SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL VS ACIT, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR Bogus capital gains from penny

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)

penny stock issue was discussed at length by Hon’ble Delhi high court in this case. The order of Hon’ble ITAT order was approved by Hon’ble High court and the gist of the decision was - S. 10(38) Bogus Capital Gains

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

capital gain amounting to Rs. 5, 79,283/- u/s. 10(38) of the Act. The revenue received a letter from the office of the PDIT (Inv.), Kolkata regarding beneficiaries of bogus LTCG in the case of penny stocks

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

Capital Gain. – The conclusion is based\non surmises and conjectures ignoring all the direct evidences produced\nby the assessee.\n1.12 The AO has also relied on a direct decision on the issue of penny stock

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

Capital Gain. – The conclusion is based on surmises and conjectures ignoring\nall the direct evidences produced by the assessee.\n1.12 The AO has also relied on a direct decision on the issue of penny stock

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penny stock ie. M/s Splash Media\nLtd/Luharuka Media & Infra Ltd., was also available at ITS Data/AIR\n\n5.4 The AO found that the alleged Long Term Capital Gains

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

capital gains earned by the assessee within a very short period of time by investing in a penny stock i.e. M/s. HPC BIOSCIENCES

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

capital gain, the AO has highlighted the investigation conducted in such penny stock and providing of bogus capital gain entries

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)

gains—A different approach/methodology was adopted by the Department, by commencing the investigation not from the individuals who traded with the penny stock but the investigation was started targeting the individuals who dealt with those penny stocks—This approach of the Department cannot be faulted in view of the fact that huge amounts were claimed as 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.

Gain of Rs. 24,20,930/- on sale of shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited. Information in respect of trading in penny stock i.e. M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. is also available at ITS data during the year under consideration. It was also detected that M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. is a penny stock listed company with a small capital

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

capital gain earning exempted income, whereas the case of the assessee is of speculation profits. (ii) The case of Swati Bajaj was regarding penny stocks

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

penny stock companies whose shares were manipulated or exploited to book either long term capital gain which is exempt from

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penny stocks are used\nnot only for obtainingbogus long term capital gain but also to obtain short\nterm capital loss/business

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.\nDisregarding the direct evidences filed by the assessee in the form of Contract Notes,\nbrokers' confirmation and PA-No. Without making any enquiry on his part, the PCIT\nsimply formed a belief that since some irregular practices have happened in the stock\nmarket, the windfall gain made by the assessee is a result of such malpractices. We find

ADITYA BAHETI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) by trading in the shares of M/s Tarbo Tech Ltd., which is a penny stock listed company

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

penny stocks. The ld. AO also noted that the as the assessee has not provided details of purchase and source of payment to purchase shares of YICL to justify the claim u/s. 10(38) of the Act and therefore, he held that Long Term Capital Gain