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

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

penny stock companies over a short period of time of little more than one year, the genuinity of such steep rise in the prices of shares needs to be established and the onus is on the assessee to do so as mandated in section 68

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

penny stock companies over a short period of time, the genuinity of such steep rise in the prices of shares needs to be established and the onus was on the appellant to do so as mandated in Section 68

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 company, the same is irrelevant because the assessee has no connection with the said operators, entry providers or stock brokers. Their statements can only be used against those assessees who have carried out the transactions through them. Moreover, these statements were never provided to the assessee. Even no Show cause notice of the proposed additions was issued

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

penny stock companies over a short period of time of little more than one year, the genuinity of such steep rise in the prices of shares needs to be established and the onus is on the assessee to do so as mandated in section 68

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

section 10(38) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata investigated transactions in 84 such penny stock shares quoted on BSE and examined on oath a large number of brokers, directors of 6 Harish Sharma HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur companies that finally purchase the shares, the promoters of Penny stock companies, the entry operator

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

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

penny stock entities whose share price was manipulated. The modus operandi had been dealt with in great detail by the AO. They need not be repeated here. The company whose shares were purchased and sold by assessee had practically no business at all. It has no meaningful asset which would arouse interest of bona fide investors to invest

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

penny stock company,\nthe same is irrelevant because the assessee has no connection with the said\noperators, entry providers or stock brokers. Their statements can only be used\nagainst those assessees who have carried out the transactions through them.\nMoreover, these statements were never provided to the assessee. Even no Show\ncause notice of the proposed additions was issued

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

section\n10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee has been receipt of show cause to\ntreat such income as bogus, as made out from penny stock and routed in the\ndisguise of long term capital gain. The notice being issued on the basis of\ninformation received from investigation wing and produced the same \"as it is\n\"without

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 same is irrelevant because the assessee has no connection\nwith the said operators, entry providers or stock brokers. Their statements can only be used\nagainst those assessees who have carried out the transactions through them. Moreover, these\nstatements were never provided to the assessee. Even no Show cause notice of the proposed\nadditions was issued

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(2) of Income Tax Act 1961 was issued on 09-08-2018. The assessee deposited Rs. 1,41,32,000/- in demonetized currency during the demonetization period 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. The AO made the addition of Rs. 1,41,32,000/- and the assessment of the assessee was completed by AO vide her order dated

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

Bench: Him.

Section 68 of the Act, Assessee from the sale of stock of Assessee should maintain books of M/s Yamini Investment Company Ltd accounts maintained by the Appellant. was made u/s 68 of the Act , on In the present case , there is no such alleged reason that the Appellant has finding by the Ld.AO that the Appellant routed his own unaccounted

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Penny stocks listed companies detected in such transactions were Turbotech, Global\nInfratech, Indian Infotech and SRK Ind. in addition to other companies. These companies\nhave small capital base but their market capitalization is multifold.\ne. The appellant is involved in transaction of these shares and it sold all shares within 7-9\nmonths resulting in huge loss

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penny stock has been settled down by filling a declaration under Income declaration scheme. The source of investment so made by the assessee cannot be taxed u/s. 68 of the Act and thereby the ld. AO is taxing the whole receipt without giving the benefit of the money which the assessee invested. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that

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. SHRI ANSHUL JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

penny stock i.e. M/s. Midland Polymers and M/s. Sulabh Engineering whose fundamentals had no support for the premium it commanded, was neither the result of a coincidence nor of a genuine investment activity but were created though well planned and executed scheme in which the company, the brokers and the buyers and sellers of the scrip worked in tandem

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

penny stock i.e. M/s. Midland Polymers and M/s. Sulabh Engineering whose fundamentals had no support for the premium it commanded, was neither the result of a coincidence nor of a genuine investment activity but were created though well planned and executed scheme in which the company, the brokers and the buyers and sellers of the scrip worked in tandem