ASHOK JASRAJ JAIN, HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-19(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Jasraj Jain, Huf, Acit-19(1), 45/12, Rajkotwala Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Bldg., 1St Carpenter Street, C.P. Tank, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaahj 0191 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to evasion of tax. leading to evasion of tax.” 4. The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the addition observing as under: the addition

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c)\nof the Act and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act.\n15. Aggrieved by the order made by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal\nbefore the Ld. CIT(Appeals) (the Ld. CIT(A) for short). Hence the Ld. CIT(A)\nproceeded with adjudicating the case which deals with exemption claimed

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

SHEHZEEN Z SIDDIQUE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act' for short) amounting to Rs.35,00,000/-. 3. The grounds of appeal raised in this regard reads as under: 2 Mrs. Shehzeen Z. Siddique 1. In the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty by not appreciating

NISHA YOGESH THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

penny stock of shares of Ramakrishna Fincap Ltd (“RFL”) is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax (“STT”) has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come

SMT. HARSH A NITIN THAKKAR,RAIGAD vs. THE DCIT CENT. CIR -3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

penny stock of shares of Ramakrishna Fincap Ltd (“RFL”) is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax (“STT”) has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come

SHRI YOGESH P.THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

penny stock of shares of Ramakrishna Fincap Ltd (“RFL”) is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax (“STT”) has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come

DINESHCHANDRA D. CHHAJED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

penny stock of shares of Ramakrishna Fincap Ltd (“RFL”) is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax (“STT”) has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come

SHRI NITIN POPATLAL THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CITI CENT. CIR -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

penny stock of shares of Ramakrishna Fincap Ltd (“RFL”) is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax (“STT”) has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come

SHRI YOGESH P. THAKKAR,PANVEL vs. THE DCIT , CC-3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

penny stock of shares of Ramakrishna Fincap Ltd (“RFL”) is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax (“STT”) has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come

SHRI NITIN POPATLAL THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CENT.CIR-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

penny stock of shares of Ramakrishna Fincap Ltd (“RFL”) is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax (“STT”) has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come

SMT HARHSA NITIN THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CITI CENT. CIR -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

penny stock of shares of Ramakrishna Fincap Ltd (“RFL”) is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax (“STT”) has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come

ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DHARAM HASMUKHBHAI JAGDA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda Income Tax Officer 32(1)(1) 154/155, Santvani Bld., Lic R. No. 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Colony, Besides Upadhya Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Dairy,Birivali(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpj0431B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2023

271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted. 010. In the instant case since the assessee has duly brought on record all the facts as to claiming exemption u/s 10(38) on account of LTCG qua the share purchased by him which was found to be a penny stock by the AO but the assessee in order to avoid

ASHOK NATHMAL GARODIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

penny stock, therefore, in order to buy peace, the assessee offered to tax the Long Term Capital Gain, which was initially claimed as exempt. It is the further plea of the assessee that since the returned income and assessed income are identical, therefore, no penalty can be levied u/s 271

ALKA RAJESH VANIGOTA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-52, MUMBAI

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

u/s 10(38) of the Act. At\nthe same time, even though all the\ncharacteristics of the penny stock\nexists in the present case, still the\nrevenue has not brought on record any\nmaterials linking the assessee in any\nof the dubious transactions relating to\nentry, price rigging or exit providers.\nEven in the SEBI report, there is no\nmention

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. (Addition of 4,90,026/-) 11. Aggrieved by the additions made, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who, after considering the submissions and material placed on record, confirmed

VINEEET MITTAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR 3(3) , MUMBAI

Accordingly, this appeal is\nalso allowed

penny stock taxed as an\nunexplained cash credit u/s 68 of IT Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately

VINEET MITTAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT . CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, this appeal is\nalso allowed

penny stock taxed as an\nunexplained cash credit u/s 68 of IT Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately