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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penny stocks and after examining the\nmodus seeing the cash trail the report has been submitted recommending\nthe same to be placed before the DGIT (investigation) of all the States of the\ncountry. It is thereafter the concerned Assessing Officers have been\nInformed to consider as to the bona fideness and genuineness of the claims\nof LTCG/LTCL of the respective

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 Stocks' not having any place under the provisions of tax laws. 2 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 3. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transaction of purchase and sale were genuine and all the requisite prescribed conditions were in existence. 4. That the ld. CIT(A)/AO failed to appreciate that

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

Penny Stocks' not having any place under the provisions of tax\nlaws.\n3. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transaction of purchase and sale\nwere genuine and all the requisite prescribed conditions were in existence.\n4. That there is a straight denial of a reasonable and sufficient opportunity viz. absence\nof cross examination of witnesses

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

price was rigged by\noperators for giving accommodation entries in form of bogus LTCG or STCL to various\nassessees. In view of above it is submitted that just because both the charts are having\nsame patterns, EEL cannot be judged as a penny stock. Without any specific findings of\npenny stock, only on basis of circumstances it cannot be concluded

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 Stocks' not having any place under the provisions of tax\nlaws.\n3. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transaction of purchase and sale\nwere genuine and all the requisite prescribed conditions were in existence.\n4. That there is a straight denial of a reasonable and sufficient opportunity viz. absence\nof cross examination of witnesses

M/S DEEPS SPECIAL STEELS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

price of share of M/s KAPPAC Pharma Ltd, was ský rocketed without having any awesone profit, EBIDTA margin, EPS, bonus, dividend etc., later on rapidly his value is done. Therefore it seems that the company involved in penny stock. It is also noted that payment received from Sun and Shine worldwide limited on 17.03.2015 whereas shares were transferred

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

penny stock i.e. M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited is also available at ITS Data/AIR. As per the details furnished by the assessee, it is noticed that the assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 as under :- Name of company Sale price Purchase price Transfer

SMT. MANJU AGRAWAL,BHARTPUR vs. ITO, BHARTPUR

In the result, the ground no

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

transfer forms. The transaction of purchase of shares could not be cross verified. The shares of the company was declared as "Penny Stock" by SEBI and the broker Sanju Kabra, through whom the shares were sold by the assessee was indicted for manipulating the prices

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. VIJETA LODHA, JAIPUR

penny stock companies over a short period of\ntime of little more than one year, the genuinity of such steep rise in the prices of\nshares needs to be established and the onus is on the assessee to do so as\nmandated in section 68. Thus, the assessees cannot be permitted to contend\nthat the assessments were based on surmises

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)

penny stocks which were purchased at a nominal price and sold ata very high price, since all the sale transactions were made through stock 14 Aditya Baheti vs. ITO exchangesthereisharldyanyscopeforpricemanipulation.Itisallthemoreso, since the assesse has paid STT.” “It is not possible to take any adverse view on the basis of mere suspicion that SEBI has initiated some action.” “ considering the absence

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)

transfers, for which Shri Deepak Goel has admitted to have provided ante-dated contract notes to his client, which was then used by the appellant to claim bogus LTCG. Thus, the appellant beneficiary's own unaccounted money was camouflaged as exempt LTCG and no tax was paid by him. The cash from appellant beneficiary was introduced into M/s Asian Bulls

KANTA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

penny stock companies in which the assessee has made transactions. SEBI had issued certain directives regarding activities of some scrips. Thereafter, the BSE on the instance of the SEBI, vide its order dated 04.05.2015 has suspended trading in several scrips including Unno Industries Limited with a finding that price in these scrips are rigged. As a result of such investigations

KANTA AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

penny stock companies in which the assessee has made transactions. SEBI had issued certain directives regarding activities of some scrips. Thereafter, the BSE on the instance of the SEBI, vide its order dated 04.05.2015 has suspended trading in several scrips including Unno Industries Limited with a finding that price in these scrips are rigged. As a result of such investigations

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

Bench: Him.

price manipulation in the shares of YICL, the AO concludes the following in para 4.6.2 of the impugned order: Alok Kumar Jain vs. ACIT/DCIT Hence, in the light of above discussions, it is concluded that the assessee has traded in the penny scrip of the M/s Yamini Investment Company Limited "YICL" amounting to Rs. 4,77,46,835/- during

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: The fact that the stock is thinly traded and there is unusually high gain is not sufficient to treat the long term capital gains as bogus when all the paper work is in order. The revenue has to bring material on record to support its finding that there has been collusion/ connivance between the broker and the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

penny stocks. AO relied the loss of Rs.25,30,396/- only on the basis of information submitted by the Stock fictitious. AO has also not doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee. AO's observation and conclusion are merely based on the information representative. Therefore, on such basis no disallowance can be made and accordingly

RAHUL KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

penny stock companies and statements of directors of such companies, alleged that the short term capital loss claimed by the assessee is bogus. Accordingly, the AO vide his order dated 29.12.2016 disallowed the above mentioned short term capital loss of Rs. 9,11,031/- as bogus short term capital loss/ unexplained cash credit of assessee under section

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: The fact that the stock is thinly traded and there is unusually high gain is not sufficient to treat the long term capital gains as bogus when all the paper work is in order. The revenue has to bring material on record to support its finding that there has been collusion/ connivance between the broker and the assessee