UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

disallowed under section 57 totally amounting to Rs. 6,46,91,500/- may kindly be deleted and the income declared by the assessee may be accepted.” 10. After considering detailed submissions of the assessee and findings of the Assessing Officer, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee observing as under: - “7.0 GROUND NO.1:TRANSACTIONS IN PENNY STOCK

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 3(3)(1)., MUMBAI vs. M/S JINESH ASHWINGKUMAR MATALIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

disallowance was that the Rockon Fintech was a penny stock company and the assessee has invested in penny stock. After

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S JINESH ASHWINKUMAR MATALIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

disallowance was that the Rockon Fintech was a penny stock company and the assessee has invested in penny stock. After

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIRAL SARAF MITTAL , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

disallowance of LTCG claimed u/s 10 (38) of the Act, on the sale of shares of penny stock company, had stated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. TEJAS BHARATKUMAR SAGLANI, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani, 4Th Floor, Room No. 405, Piramal Shop No. 22/23, Santoshi Mata Chambers, Lal Baug, Parel, Vs. Chs, Below Reliance Super, Mumbai-400012. Lamington Road, Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Azjps 8276 Q Appellant Respondent

penny stock scrip" M/s. Comfort inftech Ltd ?" 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance

ITO -24(2)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. KAILASH CHANDRA GUPTA, HUF, MUMBAI

Penny stock on the ground\nthat the broker in question was not banned by SEBI. Conversely, in our case\non hand, the AO, in the impugned assessment order has mentioned that the\noperators were banned from trading for a particular period. Hence, the\naddition made by the AO on this ground, is confirmed.\n(7) Similarly, in the case

SMT. HEMA RAMESH JAIN,THANE vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2966/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Hema Ramesh Jain बिधम/ Ito, Ward-1(5) 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Flat No. 1501, Bldg 2-Greens, Vs. Vasant Lawns, Voltas Wayale Nagar, Compound, Nr Majiwada Khadakpada, Kalyan Flyover, Thane (West)- (W), Maharashtra- 400601. 421301. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpj0407L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ajay R. Singh Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 08.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Disallowance Made By Ao Regarding The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Of Rs.23,37,135/- & Taxing The Entire Sale Consideration Of Rs.25,12,020/- On Sale Of Shares Of M/S. Sunrise Asian Ltd. (Hereinafter “M/S. Sunrise”).

penny stock and the earning of such huge income by a person not known to such type of trading is against human probabilities. This is factually incorrect as the Assessee has been registered as subbroker with SEBI and has been making personal investments since 2007. Further, apart from sale of share of Sunrise Asian, the Assessee had also sold share

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

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

penny stocks cannot be assessed as\nunexplained cash credit u/s 68 if the assesse\nhas produced documentary evidence to prove\nthe source, identity and genuineness of the\ntransaction and the AO has not found any fault\nwith it. The fact that the investigation dept has\nalleged that there is a modus operandi of bogus\nLTCG scheme is not relevant

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)

penny stocks Delhi) cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 if the assesse has produced documentary evidence to prove the source, identity and genuineness of the transaction and the AO has not found any fault with it. The fact that the investigation dept has alleged that there is a modus operandi of bogus LTCG scheme is not relevant

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

penny stock. 4. Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) treating undisclosed income u/s 68. 4.1 The Learned Assessing Officer erred

M/S VORA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.3835/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2012-13) M/S.Vora Financial Services Private Limited, 081, 806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Perin Nariman St., Bazar Gate, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacv-1975-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cir. 2(3)(1) Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020. ....."ितवादी/Respondent

disallowing assessee’s claim of business loss. It would be relevant to mention here that the assessee has suffered loss of Rs.9.65 crores from trading in shares out of which loss in trading of alleged penny stocks

MR.BHAVIN VAGHASIA(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE KANUBHAI VAGHASIA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), KALYAN

Appeal is allowed

disallowing the exemption claimed by the Appellant u/s 10(38) as Long Term Capital Gain and thereby confirming the addition made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kalyan ('the AO') amounting to Rs.86,12,600/- u/s 68 of the Act. 1.2 The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in: - not giving an opportunity to cross examine - solely relying

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SANTOSH VIMLESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit(Cc)-8(3) Santosh Vimlesh Mehta Room No. 661 6Th Floor, Aaykar 10, Mumbadevi Road, Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan No. Abhpm 0883 H Appellant Respondent

stock was observed that Noticee 1 did not make disclosure to the stock exchange under Regulation 7(1) of SAST Regulations, 1997. It was exchange under Regulation 7(1) of SAST Regulations, 1997. It was exchange under Regulation 7(1) of SAST Regulations, 1997. It was also observed that Noticee 2. did not disclose to stock exchanges also observed that

KAUSHIK CHANDRAVADAN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Penny stock on the ground that the broker in question was not banned by SEBI. Conversely, in our case on hand, the AO, in the impugned assessment order has mentioned that the operators were banned from trading for a particular period. Hence, the addition made by the AO on this ground, is confirmed. (7) Similarly, in the case of SEBI

ITO WARD 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. FAIRDEAL INFIN SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

disallowance of loss booked\nthrough trading in penny scrips amounting to Rs.26,98,630/- and\ncommission of Rs.69,870/- paid to the broker without appreciating\nthe fact that during search and survey proceedings it was established\nthat the penny stocks

SHRI BALKRISHNA GAJANAN THOPTE,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 2, KALYAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

penny stock, as the operators/brokers had admitted at\nthe time of search action and also as discussed above. The\nAssessing officer has treated the purchase and sale of these shares\nas bogus/accommodation entries and the same has been brought\nto tax u/s.68 of the Act.\nIn view of the above stated facts, the addition made by the\nassessing officer

DCIT - 19(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUGH vs. BHARAT RAMJI BHAI MANEK, GRANT ROAD MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs. 2,19,84,438/- being claimed as Long Term Capital Gain u/s. 10(38) of the 1.T. Act on sale of penny stock

DCIT , CC- 7 (4), MUMBAI vs. SAWANKUMAR T. JAJOO, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledy. Cit, Cc-7(4) Vs. Shri Sawankumar T Room No. 659, 501, Salar Gokul Chsl Aayakar Bhavan, Salasar Bhoomi, Opp Mk Road, Maxus Mall, Temba Mumbai – 400020. Road, Bhayander (W) Mumbai – 401101. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adcpj2044G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Gaurav Bansal.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 49, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

penny stock transactions and treated the long term capital gain declared by the assessee as income u/s. 68 of the Act. 7.1 Aggrieved with this addition, the assessee filed present ground of appeal and made the following submissions: 1. "Ground No. 2 - LTCG assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 only on surmises and presumptions without any incriminating evidences