2025 (8) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 20(2)(2), Mumbai (for brevity the "Ld. AO"), order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 29/12/2016. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:- "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter as "CIT(A)") u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter as "the Act") dated 18.10.2023 are bad in law and should be withdrawn. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the AO in making additions of Rs. 1,49,21,637/- towards investments in M/s. Sunrise Asian from undisclosed sour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee declared long term capital gains (LTCG)amount to Rs. 35,558/- in the return of income u/s 10(38) of the Act. After receiving the information from Kolkata Investigation Directorate, the Ld.AO considered the said scrip as penny stock and added back entire purchase of share of SAL amount to Rs. 1,49,21637/- under section 68 of the Act with total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved in the appeal order the assessee filed and appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us by challenging the appeal order. 4. The Ld.AR argued and stated that the issue is squarely covered by the order of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Haresh Dilip Vora vs. ITO bearing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ils of a list provided by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), asserting that the final SEBI order did not mention the assessee's name. Therefore, the assessee was not implicated in any price rigging or other malpractices. Further, the Ld. AR contended that the revenue relied on orders that did not consider the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in PCIT-1 vs. Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar (R/Tax Appeal No. 812 of 2023, order dated 02/01/2024). Regarding the scrip of SAL, the Ld. AR highlighted the detailed judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in CCIT (OSD)-1 v. Shri Nilesh Jain (HUF) (ITA No. 56/2021, judgment dated 30/11/2024). In this case, the Hon'ble High Court held that....