DCIT - 19(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI vs. DISHANT DEEPAK SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

Long Term Capital Gains, Short Term Capital Gains and losses on share transactions in listed penny stocks. losses on share transactions in listed penny stocks. losses on share transactions in listed penny stocks. Statements of many entry providers and beneficiaries Statements of many entry providers and beneficiaries Statements of many entry providers and beneficiaries were recorded under section

VIJAYA PRAKASH NAGORI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

long-term capital gain exemption under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer treated purchase as bogus and added it to total

LEKHRAJ JASRAJ JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

bogus LTCG income and thereby converted undisclosed income into tax free income income and thereby converted undisclosed income into tax free income income and thereby converted undisclosed income into tax free income Lekhraj J. Jain 6 without paying tax without paying taxes. Information was received that the SEBI has es. Information was received that the SEBI has suspended trading

DEVANG BHUPENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

long- term capital gain exemption under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer treated purchase as bogus and added it to total

PRAVEEN SITARAM AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-24(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

bogus long-term capital gains earned from the sale of shares of M/s. Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd. The assessee contended before the first appellate authority that the entire transaction was genuine, duly carried out through the recognised stock exchange, and supported by documentary evidence such as purchase

ANAND MELLARAM ISSRANI ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anand Mellaram Issrani, Acit 23(1), 1St Floor, Charishma Chs, Guru Piramal Chambers, Nanak Road, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapi 1267 K Appellant Respondent

long term capital gains, the AO has held that term capital gains, the AO has held that- Here, it is important to mention that it is very naive to believe that the Here, it is important to mention that it is very naive to believe that the Here, it is important to mention that it is very naive to believe

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

Capital gains - Income\narising from transfer of long-term securities\n(Bogus transactions) Assessment year 2006-\n07 Assesse purchased 3000 shares

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Capital gains IN THE ITAT - Income arising from transfer of long- AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' term securities (Bogus transactions) - Pratik Suryakant Shah v. AY 2006-07 - Assesse purchased

MANAVI GOEL SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAX WARD 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2018-19

bogus Long Term Capital Gain on sale of penny script without paying any income tax on Long Term Capital Gain and thereby converting their black money into white money without paying any income tax. There is no other way to benefit by indulging into trading of penny stock. However, in the case of the assessee, she has neither shown

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

bogus\nentries of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) which is exempt from\ntax.\n17. Assessment order clearly shows that the learned Assessing\nOfficer examined the return of income and found that it does not\nshow substantial trading activity or investment in shares of\nlisted shares and the purchase

CHITRA AVDHESH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33 (1) (3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

bogus\nentries of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) which is exempt from\ntax.\n17. Assessment order clearly shows that the learned Assessing\nOfficer examined the return of income and found that it does not\nshow substantial trading activity or investment in shares of\nlisted shares and the purchase

INCOME TAX OFFICER -19(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MITESH MEHTA HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

bogus LTCG on sale of penny stock.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a HUF and its karta is a practicing Chartered Accountant since 1988. Assessee filed its return of income on 19.08.2015 reporting total income at Rs.9,74,070/- wherein it reported long term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.96,49,488/- on sale of shares

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

long-term capital gain exemption under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer treated purchase as bogus and added it to total

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

long-term capital gain exemption under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer treated purchase as bogus and added it to total

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

long term capital gains arising out of sale of shares as exemption under section 10(38) - Assessing officer denied claim and made certain additions into assessee's income on grounds that said gains were earned through bogus penny stock transactions and companies to whom sold shares belonged were bogus in nature Tribunal observing that assessee by submitting records of purchase

MINAL M AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2), MUMBAI

bogus long term capital gain. The fact relating to said purchase and sale are that assessee alongwith his family members

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

bogus long term capital gain or short term capital gain. 37. Thus, when the scrip of PIL at the relevant period was actively traded en masse on BSE and when there was no ban on trading on this scrip by the regulatory authority, then any such transaction by the assessee, (when purchases

ASHISH K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2), MUMBAI

bogus long term capital gain. The fact relating to said purchase and sale are that assessee alongwith his family members