DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

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 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

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit Vs. Shri Vinod Balbhadra Goenka Circle-4 247, Nandanvan Layout Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.:Aanpg 6841 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur Dated 30/03/2017 In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 4/198/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Are As Under:

Penny Stock. J) Reliance on decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in ITA No.6519/Mum/2019 in the case of Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia vide order dated 31/12/2020. (P- 11 to 47) (39, 40, 41, 42, 43) [Vol.-II] K) The provisions of section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

stock broker in banking channels. It is not alleged that shares sold are available with the assessee and are not sold as claimed. Hence, in the facts of 14 the case, the sale consideration cannot be considered to be unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act. 27. The learned Departmental Representative has referred to judicial precedent

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

stock broker in banking channels. It is not alleged that shares sold are available with the assessee and are not sold as claimed. Hence, in the facts of the case, the sale consideration cannot be considered to be unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act. 27. The learned Departmental Representative has referred to judicial precedent

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

68 on account of penny stock if assessee submitted all evidences in support of sale and purchase and entire transaction was through banking channel. The AO made an addition of Rs. 31,10,915/- holding that the long-term capital gain earned by the assessee on its investment in the shares of M/s. HPC Biosciences Ltd. was not genuine

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

68 on account of penny stock if assessee submitted all evidences in support of sale and purchase and entire transaction was through\nbanking channel. The AO made an addition of Rs. 31,10,915/- holding that the long-term capital gain earned by the assessee on its investment in the shares of M/s. HPC Biosciences Ltd. was not genuine

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRIMATI MANGALA UDAPURE, NAGPUR

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Sh. Suresh Rochaldas Ward-4(2), Kewalramani, Nagpur Vs. 73, Whole Sale Cloth Market Gandhibagh, Nagpur Pan:Aaspk 5750F (Respondent) (Appellant) Asst. Cit, Sh. Sureshchand M. Agrawal Central Circle-1(1), 150, Agrawal Building, Nagpur-440 001 Vs. Ravi Nagar Chowk, Nagpur-440 001 Pan:Abfpa 6839D (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.10/Nag/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.149/Nag/2018) (Assessment Year 2013-14) Sh. Sureshchand M. Agrawal Asst. Cit, 150, Agrawal Building, Central Circle-1(1), Ravi Nagar Chowk, Vs. Nagpur-440 002 Nagpur-440 001 Pan:Abfpa 6839D (Respondent) (Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Smt. Mangalaudapure Cotton Ward-4(3), Market Nagpur -440 001 Vs. Subhash Road, Shaniwari Nagpur-440 018 Pan:Aaepu 3996K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Income tax Act treating the shares as Penny Stocks. Since, the common question arises for consideration

ASSTT. CIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SURESHCHAND MAHESHCHAND AGRAWAL , NAGPUR

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Sh. Suresh Rochaldas Ward-4(2), Kewalramani, Nagpur Vs. 73, Whole Sale Cloth Market Gandhibagh, Nagpur Pan:Aaspk 5750F (Respondent) (Appellant) Asst. Cit, Sh. Sureshchand M. Agrawal Central Circle-1(1), 150, Agrawal Building, Nagpur-440 001 Vs. Ravi Nagar Chowk, Nagpur-440 001 Pan:Abfpa 6839D (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.10/Nag/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.149/Nag/2018) (Assessment Year 2013-14) Sh. Sureshchand M. Agrawal Asst. Cit, 150, Agrawal Building, Central Circle-1(1), Ravi Nagar Chowk, Vs. Nagpur-440 002 Nagpur-440 001 Pan:Abfpa 6839D (Respondent) (Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Smt. Mangalaudapure Cotton Ward-4(3), Market Nagpur -440 001 Vs. Subhash Road, Shaniwari Nagpur-440 018 Pan:Aaepu 3996K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Income tax Act treating the shares as Penny Stocks. Since, the common question arises for consideration

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SURESH ROCHALDAS KEWALRAMANI, NAGPUR

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Sh. Suresh Rochaldas Ward-4(2), Kewalramani, Nagpur Vs. 73, Whole Sale Cloth Market Gandhibagh, Nagpur Pan:Aaspk 5750F (Respondent) (Appellant) Asst. Cit, Sh. Sureshchand M. Agrawal Central Circle-1(1), 150, Agrawal Building, Nagpur-440 001 Vs. Ravi Nagar Chowk, Nagpur-440 001 Pan:Abfpa 6839D (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.10/Nag/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.149/Nag/2018) (Assessment Year 2013-14) Sh. Sureshchand M. Agrawal Asst. Cit, 150, Agrawal Building, Central Circle-1(1), Ravi Nagar Chowk, Vs. Nagpur-440 002 Nagpur-440 001 Pan:Abfpa 6839D (Respondent) (Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Smt. Mangalaudapure Cotton Ward-4(3), Market Nagpur -440 001 Vs. Subhash Road, Shaniwari Nagpur-440 018 Pan:Aaepu 3996K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Income tax Act treating the shares as Penny Stocks. Since, the common question arises for consideration

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

penny stock deal aim at illegitimately claiming LTCG exemption under section 10(38), since there was no allegation on record suggesting the assessee or his broker involved in rigging up the price of scrips, the addition was rightly deleted by Tribunal. We find that Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in PCIT Vs Divyaben Prafulchandra Pramar (supra) also held that where

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SUDHIR RAMSWAROOP SARDA , NAGPUR

penny stock\ncompany, does not have any worthwhile asset, creditworthy business, strong\nfinancials or any other indicator to justify its soaring share prices which has\nbeen manipulated to give accommodation entries in the form of bogus long\nterm capital gains to beneficiaries. (v)\n(vi) On the facts and circumstances of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY GAURISHANKAR AGRAWAL , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

section 68 of Income Tax 1961 and added Rs.3,30,00,000/- to the income of assessee. ii) Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A)-3, Nagpur, vide order dated 30.03.2019. While deciding the appeal, Ld. CIT (A)-3, placed reliance on the decision of previous CIT (A)-III, Nagpur