Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad confirms Section 68 addition of ₹93.92 lakh for bogus LTCG from Kushal Tradelink shares, rejecting the appeal bas...
Income Tax : Penny stocks, often associated with small, illiquid companies, have been a subject of concern due to their susceptibility to price...
Income Tax : Introduction: The assessee has been taking a common argument against the addition on account of penny stock. The said argument rev...
Income Tax : The provision for exemption of long term capital gains from shares requiring payment of securities transaction tax has been taken ...
Income Tax : It is a very well-known fact that High court only entertains question of law and Income tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is the last ...
Income Tax : ITAT ruled that genuine sale proceeds supported by books, bank records and purchaser details cannot be treated as unexplained cash...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that an Investigation Wing report alone cannot justify an addition under Section 68 without independent verific...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained because the assessee produced complete documentary evi...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer failed to produce any material establishing a connection between the assessee and the all...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT sustained the addition arising from the sale of listed shares after finding discrepancies in purchase records, incl...
ITAT ruled that genuine sale proceeds supported by books, bank records and purchaser details cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal ruled that an Investigation Wing report alone cannot justify an addition under Section 68 without independent verification by the Assessing Officer. It upheld the genuineness of the share transactions based on documentary evidence produced by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained because the assessee produced complete documentary evidence supporting the share transactions. It ruled that the Assessing Officer failed to bring any cogent material to rebut the evidence or justify denial of Section 10(38) exemption.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer failed to produce any material establishing a connection between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entry provider. It upheld the deletion of the Section 69A addition for lack of supporting evidence.
The Delhi ITAT sustained the addition arising from the sale of listed shares after finding discrepancies in purchase records, including contradictory sale notes and payment receipts. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the underlying share transactions.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order after finding that the reopening of assessment proceeded on incorrect facts regarding alleged exempt income from penny stock transactions. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion regarding penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence and absence of direct incriminating material supported the assessee’s LTCG claim.
ITAT Chandigarh held that the assessee could not establish the authenticity of the purchase transactions underlying the LTCG claim. The inability to satisfactorily explain the acquisition of shares led to denial of exemption under Section 10(38) and confirmation of the addition under Section 68.
The High Court upheld denial of Section 10(38) exemption after concurrent findings established that the share transactions lacked genuineness. The Supreme Court later dismissed the SLP against the decision.
The Delhi High Court upheld the denial of Section 10(38) exemption after finding that the authorities had rightly treated the share transactions as bogus. The Court held that concurrent factual findings supported by evidence could not be interfered with in appeal.
