SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 148A of the A f the section 148A of the Act with effect from 1/4/2021, t 1/4/2021, the Assessing Officer was not he Assessing Officer was not authorised to carry authorised to carry out any enquiry, before issue issue of notice under section 148 of the A section 148 of the Act and therefore he was supposed to record

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

penny stock should not be taxed as an unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 7. In response

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

68 of the Act and of Rs. 1,10,986/- u/s 69C of the Act without providing the appellant a copy of u/s 69C of the Act without providing the appellant a copy of u/s 69C of the Act without providing the appellant a copy of the material and statement relied upon as well as an the material and statement

SHRI NILESH HARESH PARWANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Nilesh Haresh Vs. The Assistant Parwani, 501, Chumchum Commissioner Of Income Saraswati Road, Tax-22 (2) Santacruz West, Room No. 315, Piramal Mumbai – 400 064 Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Angpp1224L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sanjay Parikh Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 08.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “A. Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Rs.1,62,91,466/- 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,62,91,466/- As Made By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 22(2), Mumbai (Ao). 2. While Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of The Said Loss, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Had Not Made Out A Case As To How Such Huge Ltcg/Stcl Has Accrued To The Appellant From Shares Of The Company Named Global Infratech Ltd.

penny stock companies over a short period of time of little more than one year, the genuinity of such steep rise in the prices of shares needs to be established and the onus is on the assessee to do so as mandated in Section 68

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

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, in terms of section 68 of the Act. in terms of section 68 of the Act. Before the Assessing

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

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, ()

Stock Exchange. The Tribunal therefore had rightly concluded that there was no merit in the appeal. [Para 4] 34. We would also like to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court delivered in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-13 V/s. Shyam R. Pawar reported in [2015] 54 taxmann.com 108 (Bombay) held as under. Section 68

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, ()

Stock Exchange. The Tribunal therefore had rightly concluded that there was no merit in the appeal. [Para 4] 34. We would also like to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court delivered in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-13 V/s. Shyam R. Pawar reported in [2015] 54 taxmann.com 108 (Bombay) held as under. Section 68

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

section 68 of the Act merely on presumptions, suspicions and surmises in respect of penny stocks, disregarding the direct evidences

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

penny stock should not be taxed as an unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 5. In response

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)

Section 68 and has added it back to the total income of the assessee. The AO's decision is primarily based on findings from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, which conducted a detailed investigation into penny stock

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

penny stock, and the failure of buyers to respond to notices, indicated a scheme to evade taxes. The Tribunal noted that the purported gains were disproportionate to the company's weak fundamentals and that the price manipulation was confirmed by SEBI and SAT.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "10(38)", "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "148", "68

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

68 of the IT. Act, 1961 to the total income of the assessee during the relevant Year under consideration. income of the assessee during the relevant Year under consideration. income of the assessee during the relevant Year under consideration. Further, an amount of Further, an amount

CHINTAN SHAILESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-30(1)(2), NOW ITO WARD-41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarchintan Shailesh Shah Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1)(2) Rushikesh, Shanti Nagar, (Now Ward 41(3)(1)) Adarsh Dugdhalaya Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Malad (W), Mumbai – Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400064. 400051. Pan/Gir No. Amzps2768Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

penny stock from online stock exchange platform via banking channels and assessee was not directly names in investigations of the SEBI, the same does not absolve her from proving the genuineness of the transaction in shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. under section 68

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)

penny stock transactions, the Revenue can treat such gains as unexplained income under Section 68. Observation: Mere stock exchange transactions

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

Appeal is allowed

penny stock companies listed on Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) used for generating bogus LTCG. A perusal of the Assessment Order shows that the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the Investigation Report while making the addition of INR 86,12,600/- under Section 68

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 companies listed on Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) used for generating bogus LTCG. A perusal of the Assessment Order shows that the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the Investigation Report while making the addition of INR 86,12,600/- under Section 68