Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad confirms Section 68 addition of ₹93.92 lakh for bogus LTCG from Kushal Tradelink shares, rejecting the appeal bas...
Income Tax : Penny stocks, often associated with small, illiquid companies, have been a subject of concern due to their susceptibility to price...
Income Tax : Introduction: The assessee has been taking a common argument against the addition on account of penny stock. The said argument rev...
Income Tax : The provision for exemption of long term capital gains from shares requiring payment of securities transaction tax has been taken ...
Income Tax : It is a very well-known fact that High court only entertains question of law and Income tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is the last ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer reopened the case for fictit...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that a genuine share transaction resulting in a short-term loss cannot automatically be treated as a make-belie...
Income Tax : The ITAT Surat held that abnormal price rise in a penny stock and surrounding circumstances justified treating claimed LTCG as une...
Income Tax : The courts upheld LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) after finding that the Revenue failed to produce evidence linking the assess...
Income Tax : The High Court ruled that reopening under Sections 147 and 148 was unsustainable because the Assessing Officer’s reasons amounte...
The issue under consideration is whether Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied in the case where the assessee surrendered the income voluntarily during the course of the assessment?
The assessee had furnished PAN, copies of the income tax returns of the investors as well as copy of the bank accounts in which the share application money was deposited in order to prove genuineness of the transactions. In so far credit worthiness of the creditors were concerned, the bank accounts of the investors showed that they had funds to make payments for share application money.
(a) The scrip is a penny stock, purchased at a low price, which is over a period of time ramped up by operators acting in benami names or name lenders. The purchases are off market purchases, and not reported on the exchange; (b) purchase/s is back dated, i.e., per a back dated contract note, paid for in cash, so that there is no trail; (c) the purchases are in the physical form, and dematerialized only subsequently; generally long after the purchase date, being back dated and, further, close to the date of sale; and (d) The investee is a penny stock company, with no credentials, and the sale rates artificially hiked, with no real buyers, so that inference of the sales being bogus, is unmistakable.
Addition of long-term capital gain against an investor who invested in a penny stock company in connection with the penny stock scam involving Rs. 36,000 Crores was upheld as additions made on account of detailed enquiries being carried out by Kolkata Investigation Directorate with regard to 84 penny stocks company as well as SEBI and no new facts or circumstances had been placed on record by assessee and the orders passed by the revenue authorities had also gone unrebutted.
Shri Anoop Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the stay petition and stated that assessee has obtained the bogus long-term capital gain in penny stock and therefore it does not deserve stay of demand. He further submitted that there are equal numbers of judicial precedent against the assessee and […]
Sudha Eashwar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The assesse is claiming exemption by way of long term capital gains claimed by it to be earned on sale and purchase of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. by invoking provisions of Section 10(38) of the 1961 Act and onus is on the assessee to prove that these gains are genuine […]
The provision for exemption of long term capital gains from shares requiring payment of securities transaction tax has been taken advantage by unscrupulous tax evaders. An organised tax evasion involving the brokers of stock exchanges, taxpayers and their consultants, entry operators and exist operators was in action for quite some time.
ITO Vs M/s Citymaker Builder Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) As two of the share applicant companies as per the information received by the A.O from the office of the DGIT(Inv), Mumbai, were the companies controlled an infamous accommodation entry provider, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the lower authorities to have carried out […]
Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue for consideration before us is whether in such cases, the legal evidence produced by the assessee has to guide our decision in the matter or the general observations based on statements, probabilities, human behavior and discovery of the modus operandi adopted in earning alleged bogus […]
A perusal of financial statement, bank statements and income tax returns of share applicants companies clearly revealed that they had no regular means to invest in the share capital of the assessee company and, therefore, AO was justified in making addition under section 68 on the ground of lack of creditworthiness and genuineness.
