ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

price was paid by cheque and respondent's bank account has\nbeen debited. The shares were also transferred into respondent's Demat\naccount where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one\nyear the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the\nKolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said

SONAL ASHISH SHAH,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2541/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15

penny stock issued by SEBI, confirmed the addition under the head “Income from other sources” as against ‘unexplained cash credit’ made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A). 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the detailed paper book running into

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

price fluctuation to stock was\nbeyond her control.\n6.6 The Ld. AO has made the adjustment by forming opinion on\nsearch conducted by some other assessee. He has not\nperformed due diligence in specific to the appellant's case LING\n6.7 The Ld. AO has not mentioned any shortcoming in broker\nnotes, bank payments and other supporting documents filed

DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

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

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

Penny Stock company, notice u/s.148 of the Act issued to the assessee on 18.05.2021 and thereafter in compliance to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Ashish Agarwal and other in Civil appeal No.3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022 show cause notice u/s.148A(b) was issued and thereafter necessary formalities carried out and finally

ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. DHIRAJ BHAUSAHEB NIKAM, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

transfer form and also the shares got dematerialized very late i.e. four to five months after the date of transaction. This according the Assessing Officer is in clear violation of Securities Contract Regulation Act, 1956. He noted that the assessee has made backward papers for purchase of shares. The Assessing Officer recorded the statement of the assessee and noted that