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 stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line

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

transfer of penny stocks cannot be treated\nas bogus merely because SEBI has initiating an inquiry with regard to the\nCompany and the broker, if the shares are purchased from the exchange,\npayment is by cheque and delivery of shares is taken and given.\nA. We may further point out that similar addition were made by treating the\nsale

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

price of these companies, called penny stock. There is systematic modus operandi being followed. Assessee has vehemently opposed the decision of AO It has been contended that there is no evidence on the basis of which AO has arived at this conclusion. There is also no evidence that assesee has paid any commission to any person and AO has also

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

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

price of the said company which led to returns of 491% for the Appellant, was completely unjustified. Pertinently, the EPS of the said company was Rs. 0.01/- as in March 2016, it was Rs. - 0.01/- as in March 2015 and -0.48/- as in March 2014. Similarly, the other financials parameters of the said company cannot justify the price in excess

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

price of the said company which led to returns of 491% for the Appellant, was completely unjustified. Pertinently, the EPS of the said company was Rs. 0.01/- as in March 2016, it was Rs. - 0.01/- as in March 2015 and -0.48/- as in March 2014. Similarly, the other financials parameters of the said company cannot justify the price in excess

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

price of the said company which led to returns of 491% for the Appellant, was completely unjustified. Pertinently, the EPS of the said company was Rs. 0.01/- as in March 2016, it was Rs. - 0.01/- as in March 2015 and -0.48/- as in March 2014. Similarly, the other financials parameters of the said company cannot justify the price in excess

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

price of the said company which led to returns of 491% for the Appellant, was completely unjustified. Pertinently, the EPS of the said company was Rs. 0.01/- as in March 2016, it was Rs. - 0.01/- as in March 2015 and -0.48/- as in March 2014. Similarly, the other financials parameters of the said company cannot justify the price in excess

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

price of the said company which led to returns of 491% for the Appellant, was completely unjustified. Pertinently, the EPS of the said company was Rs. 0.01/- as in March 2016, it was Rs. - 0.01/- as in March 2015 and -0.48/- as in March 2014. Similarly, the other financials parameters of the said company cannot justify the price in excess

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

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

penny stocks and claiming long term capital gain through various brokers on payment of commission. In some cases assessee routed unsecured loan in it's books through jamakharchi companies who's creditworthiness, identity and transactions are not genuine. The assessing officer has discussed the issues in great length in the assessment order. I hereby rely on the reasons mentioned

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

penny stocks and claiming long term capital gain through various brokers on payment of commission. In some cases assessee routed unsecured loan in it's books through jamakharchi companies who's creditworthiness, identity and transactions are not genuine. The assessing officer has discussed the issues in great length in the assessment order. I hereby rely on the reasons mentioned

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

penny stocks and claiming long term capital gain through various brokers on payment of commission. In some cases assessee routed unsecured loan in it's books through jamakharchi companies who's creditworthiness, identity and transactions are not genuine. The assessing officer has discussed the issues in great length in the assessment order. I hereby rely on the reasons mentioned

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

penny stocks and claiming long term capital gain through various brokers on payment of commission. In some cases assessee routed unsecured loan in it's books through jamakharchi companies who's creditworthiness, identity and transactions are not genuine. The assessing officer has discussed the issues in great length in the assessment order. I hereby rely on the reasons mentioned

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

penny stocks and claiming long term capital gain through various brokers on payment of commission. In some cases assessee routed unsecured loan in it's books through jamakharchi companies who's creditworthiness, identity and transactions are not genuine. The assessing officer has discussed the issues in great length in the assessment order. I hereby rely on the reasons mentioned

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

penny stocks and claiming long term capital gain through various brokers on payment of commission. In some cases assessee routed unsecured loan in it's books through jamakharchi companies who's creditworthiness, identity and transactions are not genuine. The assessing officer has discussed the issues in great length in the assessment order. I hereby rely on the reasons mentioned