The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced complete evidence proving allotment, holding, dematerialization, and sale of shares through the BSE. Since the Revenue failed to disprove these documents or establish any manipulation by the assessee, the LTCG exemption could not be denied. The additions under Section 68 and for alleged commission were deleted.
TAT Mumbai held that additions under Sections 68 and 69C could not be sustained where the Revenue failed to establish any connection between the assessee and alleged price-rigging operators. The Tribunal found that the transactions were supported by demat records, banking documents, and stock exchange evidence. The LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) was restored.
ITAT Mumbai upheld the order deleting the addition made on account of alleged unexplained cash credits arising from share sale proceeds. The Revenues challenge against the relief granted to the assessee was rejected.
ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69 could not be sustained merely on the basis of statements recorded from representatives of the builder group. In the absence of incriminating material directly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, the addition of ₹31 lakh was deleted.
The Tribunal examined whether unsecured loans could be accepted solely on the basis of loan confirmations. It held that confirmations alone do not establish creditworthiness or genuineness and directed further verification by the Assessing Officer.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the transfer pricing adjustment on management fees after finding that identical issues in the assessee’s own earlier years had already been decided in its favour. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of Rs. 1.25 crore through bank records, PPF withdrawals, and documented fund movements. Since the transactions were verifiable through banking channels, the addition under Section 69 was deleted.
ITAT held that substantive rights in the property arose through the allotment letter and payment of consideration. Therefore, the period of holding was to be counted from allotment, resulting in Long-Term Capital Gain treatment.
The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the taxpayer had furnished complete documentary evidence of purchase and sale of shares. The ruling emphasizes that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legally admissible evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that statements of builder group officials, without corroborative evidence against the purchaser, cannot form the sole basis for addition. The decision reinforces the principle that third-party statements must be independently verified.
