PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Penny stocks: The assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain how the shares in an unknown company worth Rs.5 had jumped to Rs.485 in no time. The fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price rise, the assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction meant

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Penny stocks: The assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain how the shares in an unknown company worth Rs.5 had jumped to Rs.485 in no time. The fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price rise, the assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction meant

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Penny stocks: The assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain how the shares in an unknown company worth Rs.5 had jumped to Rs.485 in no time. The fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price rise, the assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction meant

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Penny stocks: The assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain how the shares in an unknown company worth Rs.5 had jumped to Rs.485 in no time. The fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price rise, the assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction meant

M/S. SAMRIDHI STOCKS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance bogus loss resulting from the trading in the equity shares of above penny stock company vide order dated 27.11.2018 passed

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

penny stocks without providing to your appellant any material evidence to the contrary on which he relied upon. (4) Ld. Income Tax Officer has failed to appreciate that prices of equity shares in stock exchange is guided by market forces without any direct of indirect involvement of anybody. (5) Ld. Income Tax Officer has failed to appreciate that when purchase

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

penny stocks without providing to your appellant any material evidence to the contrary on which he relied upon. (4) Ld. Income Tax Officer has failed to appreciate that prices of equity shares in stock exchange is guided by market forces without any direct of indirect involvement of anybody. (5) Ld. Income Tax Officer has failed to appreciate that when purchase

M/S RARITY AGENCIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 9(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penny stocks companies had credit worthiness and coupled with genuinity and identity. [para 73] 7. The assessee cannot escape from the burden cast upon him and unfortunately in these cases the burden is heavy as the facts establish that the shares which were traded by the assessees had phenomenal and fanciful rise in price in a short span of time

VICKY FINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 1362/KOL/2023 is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Penny Stocks. Therefore, the assessee is requested to explain why these loss of Rs.2.27,75,453/- should not be disallowed

RAIGARH JUTE & TEXTILE MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2286/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd...................................................……Appellant 36, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcr2034B] Vs. Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 16, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)- 15 Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Disallowing & Adding Back The Appellant'S Claim For Deduction Of Loss Suffered Of Rs.4,02,00,360/- Suffered By The Appellant In Its Share Trading Business. 2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-15 Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Invoking The

penny stock companies, further discussed about the report of the Special Investigation Team of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on black money, wherein, the modus operandi of investigation on black money has been discussed. The Assessing Officer thereafter switched to the facts of the present case and observed that the assessee in this case was not a regular investor/trader

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

penny stock and used as an instrument to claim bogus long term capital 5 Mitul Pravinchandra Malani: AY: 2014-15 gain/short term capital loss. The investment was made at the fag end of the year with predetermined objective to make short-term capital loss and to adjust the same with the short-term capital gain which already was earned

NALANDA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

penny stocks were rigged on the stock exchange platform. The ld. D/R submitted that the transactions done by the assessee are nothing but bogus accommodation entries and, therefore, loss sustained by the assessee during the year from share trading was rightly disallowed

DCIT CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. ZEN STOCK AND SHARE BROKING PVT LTD, KOLKATA

disallowed the loss on the grounds that the shares were of a penny stock company and the price fluctuations were

BINA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowed a long term capital gain on sale of penny stocks. Where the PCIT was of the view that AO has not conducted

KUSUM GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowed a long term capital gain on sale of penny stocks. Where the PCIT was of the view that AO has not conducted

GILT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

disallowed the trading loss on penny stock, which was later upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Taking cognizance of merits

RAJESH KUMAR DAMANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-50(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance of various expenses. The addition is not called for and hence the same be deleted. 4. For that in the facts and circumstance the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in not allowing the exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act 1961. The exemption be allowed as per law. 2 AY: 2011-12 Rajesh Kumar Damani

LITTLESKY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Hon'Ble Tribunal Against The Appellate Order Dated 27.07.2021 Received On Same Day Through Email, Numbered As Ita No. 563/Kol/22 & Fixed For Hearing Before The Ld. 'Smc' Bench With A Delay Of Around 369 Days.

penny stock was duly accounted for in the value of closing stock and thus, it was beyond comprehension that additions would be made by disallowing

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

penny stocks were rigged on the stock exchange platform. The ld. D/R submitted that the transactions done 9 I.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited by the assessee are nothing but bogus accommodation entries and, therefore, loss sustained by the assessee during the year from share trading and F&O segment was rightly disallowed