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 : The ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer reopened the case for fictit...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that a genuine share transaction resulting in a short-term loss cannot automatically be treated as a make-belie...
Income Tax : The ITAT Surat held that abnormal price rise in a penny stock and surrounding circumstances justified treating claimed LTCG as une...
Income Tax : The courts upheld LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) after finding that the Revenue failed to produce evidence linking the assess...
Income Tax : The High Court ruled that reopening under Sections 147 and 148 was unsustainable because the Assessing Officer’s reasons amounte...
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer reopened the case for fictitious loan entries but made additions for alleged bogus LTCG from penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that changing the basis of reopening is not permissible in law.
The Tribunal ruled that a genuine share transaction resulting in a short-term loss cannot automatically be treated as a make-believe or accommodation entry transaction. The assessee’s regular trading history supported the genuineness of the transactions.
The ITAT Surat held that abnormal price rise in a penny stock and surrounding circumstances justified treating claimed LTCG as unexplained income under Section 68. The Tribunal found the transactions to be part of a pre-arranged accommodation entry scheme.
The courts upheld LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) after finding that the Revenue failed to produce evidence linking the assessee to alleged penny stock manipulation. Documentary records, banking transactions, and Demat evidence supported the genuineness of the share transactions.
The High Court ruled that reopening under Sections 147 and 148 was unsustainable because the Assessing Officer’s reasons amounted only to suspicion and not a valid reason to believe income had escaped assessment.
DCIT Vs Shikha Indrakumar Agrawal (ITAT Nagpur) The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld deletion of additions made under Sections 68 and 69C in respect of long-term capital gains claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) on sale of listed shares. The assessee had purchased 24,000 shares of […]
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains cannot be disallowed solely on investigation reports and assumptions. It found that documentary evidence and investment history supported genuineness, leading to deletion of additions under Section 68.
The tribunal ruled that reliance only on an investigation report without independent evidence cannot justify treating LTCG as bogus. Additions under Section 68 and commission were deleted.
The Tribunal held that mere classification of shares as penny stock is insufficient to deny LTCG exemption. In absence of evidence linking the assessee to manipulation, the addition under Section 69A was deleted.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of loss based on alleged penny stock manipulation was not justified without corroborative evidence. It found that transactions were supported by demat and banking records.
