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

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

short term\ncapital gain.\nHeld that:\n15. Therefore, respectfully, following\nthe decision of the coordinate bench of\nthe Tribunal, we hold that the long\nterm capital gain on the sale of shares\nof M/s. Splash Media & Infra Ltd. is\nnot a bogus capital gain as the AO has\nsolely relied on the report of\ninvestigation/search team and has not\ncarried

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)

bogus and added as unexplained cash credit of Rs.89,80,308/-u/s68 of the Act. B. WHY ADDITION MADE BY AO. IS NOT SUSTAINABLE: In AY 2016-17assessee sold shares and booked the Long-Term capital gain. Summary is given as under. THE SUMMARY TO DETAILS, FACTS AND EXPLANATIONS IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF LONG-TERM

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

purchase and sale of shares were not affected for commercial purposes, but with an intention to create artificial Long Term Capital Gain and Short Term Capital Loss or business losses with a view to abate payment of taxes and the assessee has not been able to justify the un-usual rise and fall in share prices of the company

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

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

Short term Capital gains and Income from\nother sources and has filed her return of income on\n26.07.2014 declaring her total income at Rs.4,54,940/-.\nShe has also claimed an exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of\nRs.84,79, 100/- being the Long-term capital gains on listed\nsecurities. The case was selected for scrutiny by CASS.\nConsequently

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

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

Short term Capital gains and Income from\nother sources and has filed her return of income on\n26.07.2014 declaring her total income at Rs.4,54,940/-.\nShe has also claimed an exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of\nRs.84,79, 100/- being the Long-term capital gains on listed\nsecurities. The case was selected for scrutiny by CASS.\nConsequently

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

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

Term Capital Gain (in short \"LTCG\"), however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in Investigation Wing Report, addition made by Assessing Officer has been rightly deleted.\n\nIn the light of the above, and considering the submission made by the appellant

JASMIN K AJMERA ,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

JITEN K. AJMERA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE KISHORE H. AJMERA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-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

REENA A AJMERA ,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

AVANI J AJMERA,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

MANISH K AJMERA ,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

ALPESH K AJMERA ,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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ DHANJI GOSHAR, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

short term capital loss. Merely because a particular scrip is identified as a penny stock by the income tax department, it does not mean all the transactions carried out in that scrip would be bogus. So many investors enter the capital market just to make it a chance by investing their surplus monies. They also end up with making investment

BHAVANA LALIT JAIN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

bogus long-term capital gain and short-term capital gain. The shares of Surabhi investment and chemicals Ltd were also found as one of the penny stocks mentioned in the investigation report which did not have adequate financial strength, but price of the share have increased in disproportionate manner. Such increase in price of the shares was considered

ITO-28.3.1, NAVI MUMBAI vs. SEEMA NARENDRA BAPNA, NERUL

In the result both the grounds of appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2014-15 Ito,28.3.1, Seema Narendra Bapna, Mumbai Flat No.A 2701, Plot No. R3 B Emerald Bay, Sector Vs. 14 Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Thane 400706

bogus accommodation entries of long- term capital gain, long-term capital loss and others. During the investigation it was also observed that large-scale manipulation has been/is being done in market price of shares of certain companies listed on Bombay stock exchange by certain persons working in a syndicate to provide accommodation entries of tax- exempt long-term capital gain

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

short-term capital loss entry to its beneficiaries by way of transactions in penny stocks. The learned DR further submitted that various stock brokers have also accepted in the statement recorded during the aforesaid investigation that the scrips of aforesaid companies were used for providing accommodation entries of bogus long-term capital gains/short-term capital loss, which were taken into consideration

SHAILY PRINCE GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

short term capital loss. Merely because a particular scrip is identified as a penny stock by the income tax department, it does not mean all the transactions carried out in that scrip would be bogus. So many investors enter the capital market just to make it a chance by investing their surplus monies. They also end up with making investment