Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Acit, Cc-15, New Delhi vs Dinesh Gupta, New Delhi on 6 April, 2021
16. The assessee has relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi
Bench in the case of ITO Vs. Smt. Shivani Gupta and Shri Dinesh
Gupta (supra), the ITAT, Delhi, under identical set of facts and
also on identical issue of capital gains derived from sale of shares
26
ITA Nos.1348 to 1352/Hyd/2025
Sudhir Babu Chalasani
and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, held that, once the
A.O. does not reject the documentary evidence furnished by the
assessee in support of the transactions of Capital Gains derived
from sale of shares, then merely on the basis of report of
Investigation, that too without there being any reference to the
assessee, additions cannot be made to consideration received
from sale of shares as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Coinage Act, 2011
Suman Poddar vs Income Tax Officer on 22 November, 2019
8. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the
assessee and also taking note of certain judicial precedents,
including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Suman Poddar Vs. Income Tax Officer (2019) 112 taxmann.com
330 held that, although the assessee claimed that, he was a
regular investor in shares and acquired the shares of Brilliant
Securities Ltd in the F.Y. 2000-01 through off-market purchases,
but failed to explain how the shares of Brilliant Securities Ltd were
converted into the shares of Stampede Capital Ltd, and also failed
to substantiate the mode of acquisition. Further, though the
assessee, in his written submissions, had stated that the contract
notes were submitted, no such evidence was produced before him.
The A.O. in para 8 of the assessment order has discussed about
the financial statements of Stampede Capital Ltd which does not
show any strength in the increase in the price of shares. Also,
there is no price movement even when large quantities of shares
10
ITA Nos.1348 to 1352/Hyd/2025
Sudhir Babu Chalasani
have been traded, again indicating the transactions were pre-
arranged. Although, the assessee has been harping on the period
of holding of shares in his arguments and that these shares were
held since F.Y. 2000-01 and has filed documentary evidences like
payment through bank, consolidated share certificate by RTA and
proof of holding the shares in Demat account etc regarding the
purchases, however not a single document or evidence has been
submitted with regard to the sale and how and when the sales of
Brilliant Securities Ltd were converted into shares of Stampede
Capital Ltd. He simply stated in the submissions dated
31.03.2022 that a change of name does not appear to be a
genuine transaction or does not appear to result in the acquisition
of new shares, without any supporting evidence. Since the
assessee has not filed relevant evidences to prove the genuineness
of purchases of shares through off-market transactions,
subsequent conversion into Stampede Capital Ltd shares and
further, the above penny stock shares have been used for
providing accommodation entries to various persons, the A.O. has
rightly treated the consideration received by the assessee from the
sale of above shares as unexplained money and brought to tax
11
ITA Nos.1348 to 1352/Hyd/2025
Sudhir Babu Chalasani
u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A)
rejected the arguments of the assessee and sustained additions
made by the A.O. for Rs.28,61,127/- towards consideration
received for sale of shares, as unexplained money u/s 69A of the
Act.
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1