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" companies. It was observed that the usual practice involves transfer of shares of such companies to the intended involves transfer of shares of such companies to the intended involves transfer of shares of such companies to the intended beneficiaries at a nominal price

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 companies are being used for the purpose of money laundering activities wherein shares of no value or negligible value are purchased and held for more than twelve months and transferred thereafter at an exorbitant price

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- 3 A.Y. 2014-15 Smt. Hema Ramesh Jain stock (M/s. Sunrise in this case) and claimed bogus LTCG. The AO referred to the statement given by Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein he admitted (during the course of search in his premise) that prices of acquisition and sale of M/s. Sunrise shares were

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)

prices of Sunrise Asian, even though assessee had purchased shares of 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 of the Act. The following

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 companies with the help of certain entry providers. Accordingly, the AO brought to tax the sale proceeds of shares as income u/s 68 of the Act, thereby denying exemption u/s 10(38) and also made addition of commission u/s 69C of the Act. 9.18. In my considered view, the reasoning of the Hon'ble ITAT in its detailed

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

price of scrip. Further the director support the astronomical rise in price of scrip. Further the director support the astronomical rise in price of scrip. Further the director was not able to provide any documentary evidence to prove that a was not able to provide any documentary evidence to prove that a was not able to provide any documentary evidence

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. Further it is based on incorrect data of market price. The appellant has submitted all the relevant document/papers / statement to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The Learned Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence it was held in the case of CIT Vs Carbo Industrial Holding Ltd by Kolkatta High Court that mere suspicious of the assesses

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)

prices of shares are not controlled /managed by the assessee. Similar view has found in the case of ITO-(24)(3)(1), Mumbai V/s M/s Indravardan Jain HUF, by hon'ble ITAT Mumbai I bench. It is also noted by the bench that investigation into penny stocks cannot necessarily mean that all transactions are bogus. The nature of the transaction

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

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 does not by itself, render transactions in such shares non-genuine. The stock market operates under a regulatory framework where shares, irrespective of their financial fundamentals, are allowed to be traded on stock exchanges. Once such share is permitted to be listed and traded, any investor or trader - whether a regular market participant or a one-time investor

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

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

stocks. The following table shows life time high and low price of shares of some companies in different segment of business. These companies are PSU / some companies have become Private sector companies but still stake of government is quite high.\n\n3.20 Hence the upward trend in respect of the prices cannot be a circle to treat the capital gain

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

transfer forms. The transaction of\npurchase of shares could not be cross verified. The shares of\nthe company was declared as \"Penny Stock\" by Stel and the\nbroker Sanju Kabra, through whom the shares were sold by\nthe assessee was indicted form manipulating the prices

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1) MUMBAI, VASHI vs. SACHIN VELJI SHAH, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

penny stock of shares of Ramkrishna 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 13 ITA 1938/Mum/2023 Sachin Velji Shah Transaction Tax (“STT”) has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares

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

penny share price manipulation and has participated in that this process to avoid tax liability by generation of long- term capital gain and claiming exemption under section 10 (38). In view of the above, it is proposed for approval of your good self for assessing the income of the assessee under section 147 of the income

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)

penny stock scrips, including that of M/s. Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd. It was pointed out that the findings revealed that the scrip was used specifically for providing accommodation entries of bogus long-term capital gains, and even enquiries conducted with the exit providers confirmed that these transactions were orchestrated in a pre-arranged manner to facilitate artificial gains. Accordingly

AJAY SHANKARLAL BANKDA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2484/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ajay Shankarlal Bankda बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-16(2) B Wing 4301, Db Woods, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Gokuldham, Goregaon East, Maharshi Karve Marg Mumbai-400063. Road, New Marine Lines, Churchagate, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpb2851J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri Anil Sant (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2024 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 21.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.88,06,950/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

penny stock and the capital gain declared was held to be accommodation entries. A broker Basant Periwal & Co. (the said broker) through whom these transactions have been effected had appeared and it was evident that the broker had indulged in price manipulation through synchronized and cross deal in scrip of RFL. SEBI had also passed an order regarding irregularities

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

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

transferred in\nDMAT form to the stock exchange clearing house and the seller only\nreceives sales consideration from the stock exchange through the\nshare broker. Therefore, neither the seller knew the purchasers, nor\nthe purchasers knew the seller. In absence of any corroborative\nevidence that both Seller and Purchaser have indulged into some\nclandestine transactions, there is not even