News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
« From the Courts »
 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Room No.305, C.R. Building, New Delhi. Vs. M/s. KEI Industries Ltd., D-90, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi.
 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-32, New Delhi vs. M/s Utkarsh Realtech Pvt. Ltd. M-11,Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi
 Freak Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Sabharwal & Partners, Advocates, Delhi High Court, 4819/24, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi. Vs. ACIT Central Circle 28, New Delhi.
 M/s. Marudhara Marketing Pvt. Ltd., C/o Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E – 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi – 110 048. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle 30, New Delhi.
 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), (Intl. Tax), New Delhi. Vs. Shri Naresh Kumar, C/o Dewan P.N. Chopra & Co. D-295, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024.
 M/s. Emergent Ventures India Pvt. Ltd., 11th Floor, Vatika Professional Point, Sector-66, Golf Course Extension Road, Gurgaon Vs. ACIT, Range-1, Gurgaon
 DCIT, Circle-2(1), New Delhi Vs. M/s. BBC Worldwide (India) Pvt. Ltd, 518- 522, World Trade Centre, Baba Road, New Delhi
 CRM Services India Pvt. Ltd., 220, Vinobha Puri, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. Vs. ACIT, Circle-6(2), CR Building, New Delhi
 Reed & Pick Impex (P) Ltd., Opposite ITI, GT Road, Panipat Haryana – 132103 Vs. ITO, Ward-5, Panipat
 Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. (β€˜ALIL’) 202-206, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Vs. Addl CIT, Special Range-1, Room No. 159A, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001
 Whirlpool of India Ltd., Plot No. 40, Whirlpool House, Sector-44, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, LTU, Delhi

Sunita Jain vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
April, 14th 2017

Bogus penny stock capital gains: Failure to provide a copy of the statement relied upon and of cross-examination renders the assessment order void. The claim of capital gains from penny stocks cannot be denied on presumption and surmises by disregarding direct evidences relating to the sale/purchase transactions of shares supported by broker’s contract notes, confirmation of receipt of sale proceeds through regular banking channels and the demat account

(i) The entire assessment is based upon the statement of Shri Mukesh Choksi. It is an undisputed fact that neither a copy of the statement was supplied to the assessee nor any opportunity of cross-examination was given by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A). On the strength of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006, the assessment order has to be quashed.

(ii) Even on facts of the case, the orders of the authorities below cannot be accepted. There is no denying that consideration was paid when the shares were purchased. The shares were thereafter sent to the company for the transfer of name. The company transferred the shares in the name of the assessee. There is nothing on record which could suggest that the shares were never transferred in the name of the assessee. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the shares were never with the assessee. On the contrary, the shares were thereafter transferred to demat account. The demat account was in the name of the assessee, from where the shares were sold. In our understanding of the facts, if the shares were of some fictitious company which was not listed in the Bombay Stock Exchange/National Stock Exchange, the shares could never have been transferred to demat account. Shri Mukesh Choksi may have been providing accommodation entries to various persons but so far as the facts of the case in hand suggest that the transactions were genuine and therefore, no adverse inference should be drawn.

(iii) In the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) and considering the facts in totality, the claim of the assessee cannot be denied on the basis of presumption and surmises in respect of penny stock by disregarding the direct evidences on record relating to the sale/purchase transactions in shares supported by broker’s contract notes, confirmation of receipt of sale proceeds through regular banking channels and the demat account.

(iv) Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to treat the gains arising out of the sale of shares under the head capital gains- “Short Term” or “Long Term” as the case may be. The other grievance of the assessee becomes infructuous.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Company Overview

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions