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 : Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Calcutta decision in CIT vs. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co Ltd regarding disallowance of cap...
Income Tax : Explore the Calcutta High Court judgment in PCIT Vs Kaushalya Dealers Pvt Ltd under Income Tax Act 1961, focusing on Section 263 j...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur rules that AO's non-addition of bogus LTCG does not make the order automatically erroneous. Detailed analysis of Vipul...
Income Tax : Rajasthan HC dismisses Income Tax Dept's appeal, upholds ITAT decision deleting additions on capital gain from share sale. Read th...
Income Tax : MP High Court dismisses the Income Tax Dept's appeal against Gopal Tayal, upholding ITAT's decision on alleged bogus penny stock L...
Abhinav Agarwal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Snapshot of Basic modus of providing bogus LTCG 1. Merger of Unlisted companies with Listed Entity: This is the most preferred option for the persons willing to operate for the purpose of doing Long Term capital Gains. In case of the mergers with listed companies, the merger petition has […]
Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikavat Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The case was reopened pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing, Kolkata wherein it was alleged that the assessee was beneficiary of bogus Long-Term Capital gains (LTCG) by dealing in a scrip namely M/s Unisys Software & Holding Industries Ltd. (in short ‘Unisys’). Accordingly, the case […]
Shri Sanjay Singal Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Addition of Rs. 61.86 Crore in 9 Appeals on Account of Bogus Long Term Capital Gain U/S 10(38) Claimed Deleted on Facts of Alleged Penny Scrip of PIL (Praneta Industries Ltd) and Revenue Rule 29 Application Containing Fir Filed by ED Against Companies of Bhushan Group & Statement […]
Vinay Kumar Dhingra (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Contention of Assessee: 1. The assessee fulfills all conditions specified u/s. 10(38) 2. Though the purchase of securities are off market, the sale of shares was made online on which STT has been duly paid. 3. The shares were held for approximately 18 to 20 months 4. […]
Jayesh Shantilal Vira Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Addition u/s 10(38) on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) deleted where no further verification made by AO except solely reliance on information from investigation wing. ITAT held that the long term capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd. is not […]
ITAT Mumbai ruling on Anusmriti Sarkar vs ITO case. Analysis of LTCG from Kailash Auto Finance Scrip, added without independent verification. Get insights into key decisions.
Shri Kamal Kishore Soni Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee has made the investment in the shares of Rockon Fintech in the year 2008-09 whereas the report of the investigation wing is dated 16.3.2018. Therefore, the argument of the assessee’s counsel that the assessee could not have known that Rockon Fintech is a penny stock company […]
Sh. Mukesh Mittal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The assessment order clearly shows that the AO has merely reproduced the modus operandi of the entry providers who booked bogus long term capital gains through penny stock companies. The show cause notice dated 2.12.2016 issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and the findings of the […]
ITO Vs Shivani Gupta (ITAT Delhi) The A.O. in this case noted that assessee has sold the shares of Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd., and claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act of the impugned amount. The A.O. merely declared this company to be penny stock company without bringing any evidence on record. Though […]
Kiran Kumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The AO disallowed the exemption claimed u/s.10(38) solely based on the investigation report by SEBI pertaining to certain cases based from Kolkatta wherein share prices rigged substantially over a period of time. Merely on suspicion and surmises, this disallowance was made without any corroborative evidence. The AO failed to […]
