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 Mumbai rules that share transactions backed by DEMAT statements cannot be treated as bogus income without concrete proof....
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that Long Term Capital Gain [LTCG] earned from transaction in penny stock is liable for addition. Accordingly, app...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata invalidates reassessment in Pradip Kumar Jajodia HUF case, citing lack of tangible evidence for alleged bogus LTCG on...
Income Tax : ITAT deletes addition of Rs. 48.48 lakh for penny stock investment, ruling that no concrete evidence was presented by the Income T...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court dismisses appeal in PCIT Vs Sawankumar T Jajoo, upholding ITAT's order on long-term capital gains from penny s...
Where sale and purchase of shares had taken place only through banking channel at Bombay Stock Exchange and were supported by contract note, income from long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of listed equity shares after payment of STT were rightly claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and AO was precluded in making addition of LTCG as unaccounted income in absence of any supporting evidence.
Assessee was not entitled to claim long term capital gain as exempt u/s 10(38) and the same was deemed to be income under section 69A as it was revealed that purchase and sale of shares were arranged transactions by assessee to create bogus profit in the garb of tax exempt long term capital gain by well organised network of entry providers with the sole motive to sell such entries to enable the beneficiary to account for the undisclosed income for a consideration or commission.
Assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an unknown company had jumped to an higher amount in no time when the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price rise. Also, assessee failed to provide details of persons who purchased the shares. Clearly, assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction, meant to account for undisclsoed income in the garb of long-term capital gain, therefore, such gain had to be assessed as undisclosed credit under section 68.
It is a very well-known fact that High court only entertains question of law and Income tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is the last fact-finding authority. Thus, finding of fact as given by the ITAT would be basis for deciding the matter by High Court or Supreme Court. If, however findings given by the ITAT is […]
Udit Kalra Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) In the case there was a specific information that assessee has indulged in non-genuine and bogus capital gain obtained from the transactions of purchase and sale of shares of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd., a Mumbai based company. It is noticed that the purchase transaction has been done off […]
Mukta Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Long-term capital gains on sale of shares could not be treated as bogus on the reason that the price of these shares had risen manifolds and the reason for astronomical rise was not related to any fundamentals of market. Once the transactions were duly proved by trading from […]
CIT(A) has in his order relied upon circumstantial evidence and human probabilities to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called rules of suspicious transaction
Mahavir Jhanwar Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The sole issue that arises for my adjudication is whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that he had earned Long Term Capital Gains on purchase and sale of the shares of M/s Unno Industries. The AO based on a general report and […]
Since assessee had brought all the relevant material to substantiate its claim that transactions of the purchase and sale of shares were genuine and AO had brought nothing controverting material to deny the same, therefore, the long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares of M/s. KAFL claimed as exempt by assessee could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of investigation wing.
Conclusion: Claim of assessee for long term capital gains arising on transfer of shares u/s.10(38) was real or sham, required a revisit by AO by considering all the evidences produced by assessee and also, AO should allow the opportunity of cross-examination to check the nature of transaction.
