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

penny’ stock company stock company namely The Assessing Officer “M/s Action Financial Services India Ltd. Action Financial Services India Ltd.” The Assessing recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response, the assessee

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

penny stock shares. Through Through Through the the the said said said transaction, transaction, transaction, the the the assessee assessee assessee converted converted converted undisclosed income into tax undisclosed income into tax-free income by not offering LTCG In ring LTCG In his Return of of Income. 4.1 The learned counsel for the assessee thereafter invited The learned counsel

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

penny stock was not based in any Incriminating material found during the course of search. As found from the assessment order, there was search conducted in the case of Bhattad Group on 18.11.2016 and notice u/s.153C was issued in the case of assessee on 10.09.2018 As such the claim of the assessee is that the aforesaid assessment years were

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

penny stock was not based in any Incriminating material found during the course of search. As found from the assessment order, there was search conducted in the case of Bhattad Group on 18.11.2016 and notice u/s.153C was issued in the case of assessee on 10.09.2018 As such the claim of the assessee is that the aforesaid assessment years were

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

penny stock shares is not relevant for forming belief that income arising stock shares is not relevant for forming belief that income arising stock shares is not relevant for forming belief that income arising from sale of shares of MKEL has escaped assessment. from sale of shares of MKEL has escaped assessment. from sale of shares of MKEL has escaped

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

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

penny stocks and\nsection 68, on merits of the issue it is found that, based on the unique facts\nthe additions made by the AO in respect of LTCG claimed by the Appellant are\nnot substantiated with any cogent evidences. In view of the above, Ground\nNo.-2 and 3 of the appeal is hereby allowed. The sale of 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)

penny stock. 13. Further, the AO has not been able to place on record any evidence about the mutual connivance of the assessee and the operators. There is absolutely no evidences with regard to the fact that the assessee had given cash to any entry operators. Since the shares were sold through recognised stock exchange on which the assessee

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 operators, reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee and notice

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

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 companies to be of returning the amount of initial investment in cash and it further understood that at the time of booking of capital gain, bogus capital gain could be recognized only upon payment of equivalent cash to operators. The case of the assessee could easily be distinguished from the modus operandi explained supra. In this regard

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAJEN KIRTILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings for the same Assessment Year 2013-2014. According to the Assessing Officer as per the information received from the office of the Deputy Director Income Tax (Investigation)- II, Baroda [vide letter dated 25/7/2016] Bakra Pratishthan Ltd was a penny stock

KAMLESH GUPTA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 13(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Kamlesh Gupta Dy. Commissioner Of 59, Mount Unique 62-A, Vs. Income-Tax (13)(3)(1) Peddar Road, Room No. 229, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 026 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aegpg6788R

penny stock company, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 was issued by the A.O on 31.03.2017. In response, the assessee vide his letter dated 25.04.2017 stated that his original return of income filed on 30.01.2012 may be treated as a return filed in response to the aforementioned notice issued

PREETI CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 28(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

penny stock listed on BSE and this company had been used to facilitate introduction of unaccounted income of members of beneficiaries in the form of exempt capital gain or STCL in their books of accounts. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act on 23.12.2021. The assessment under section

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

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 to be manipulation by the accommodation entry provider by rigging the price of the shares on stock exchange, providing exit providers for generation of long-term capital

KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

penny stocks. Thereby even if the said income is reassessed u/s. 263 of the Act, after set-off of other

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SUPAMA FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reassessment order. He submitted Supama Financial Service Ltd Supama Financial Service Ltd 6 that although the company’s sales turnover had remained broadly at although the company’s sales turnover had remained broadly at although the company’s sales turnover had remained broadly consistent, the fluctuations in its share price were wholly consistent, the fluctuations in its share price were

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

stock broker, SIT paid and the payment was through a banking channel, hence the capital gains exempt under section 10(38) of the Act cannot be assessed under section 68 of the Act. 1.2. Without prejudice to the above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case arid in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the order

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

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

PENNY\" stocks cannot be treated as bogus & unexplained cash credit if the documentation is in order. Farrah Marker vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITA No. 3801/Mum/2011 vide order dated 27.04.2016\n\nVIII] Further Ahmedabad Tribunal in Manojkumar Sarawagi (HUF) (ITAT 'A' Bench, Ahmedabad Order dated 16.3.2012 in ITA No. 3233 & 3156/Ahd/2010) has held that evidence and explanation of the assesse support