2019 (10) TMI 465

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is that the assessee filed her return of income with ITO, Non-Corporate Ward- 14(3), Chennai, declaring income of Rs. 4,99,910/-. The case was selected for scrutiny by Revenue and the assessment was framed by learned Assessing Officer(AO) vide assessment order dated 31.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961, wherein two additions were made by the AO to the returned income, firstly, an addition of Rs. 39,77,886/- by disallowing an exemption claimed by the assessee u/s.10(38) of the 1961 Act and secondly there was additions made of cash deposit of Rs. 6,27,700/- made by the assessee in its bank account , wherein income assessed by the AO was Rs. 51,05,496/- as against returned income of Rs. 4,99,910/- and income- tax payable was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2 On being asked by the Bench, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions were made on the allegation of manipulation and rigging in penny stocks through Stock Exchanges, wherein, long term capital gains were earned to the tune of Rs. 39,77,886/- in the listed share namely Turbotech Engineering Limited , which gains were claimed as an exempt income u/s.10(38) of the Act by the assessee but disallowed by the AO which were later confirmed by learned CIT(A) on the allegations that these gains were not genuine long term capital gains and were earned through rigging and manipulation of stocks through stock exchanges. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, however, denied on its part before the Bench that there was any manipulation an....