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...
Sh. Mukesh Mittal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The assessment order clearly shows that the AO has merely reproduced the modus operandi of the entry providers who booked bogus long term capital gains through penny stock companies. The show cause notice dated 2.12.2016 issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and the findings of the […]
ITO Vs Shivani Gupta (ITAT Delhi) The A.O. in this case noted that assessee has sold the shares of Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd., and claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act of the impugned amount. The A.O. merely declared this company to be penny stock company without bringing any evidence on record. Though […]
Kiran Kumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The AO disallowed the exemption claimed u/s.10(38) solely based on the investigation report by SEBI pertaining to certain cases based from Kolkatta wherein share prices rigged substantially over a period of time. Merely on suspicion and surmises, this disallowance was made without any corroborative evidence. The AO failed to […]
DCIT Vs Jainam Investments (ITAT MUMBAI) Under this issue the revenue has challenged the deletion of disallowance of Rs.4,71,19,785/- on of sale shares of M/s. Mahavir Advanced Remedies. The Ld. Representative of the revenue has argued that the CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance of Rs.4,71,19,785/-, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, […]
In the instant case, the AO had proceeded predominantly on the basis of the analysis of the financials of M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited. His conclusion and findings against the Respondent are chiefly on the strength of the astounding 4849.2% jump in share prices of the aforesaid company within a span of two years, which is not supported by the financials.
In the absence of any link between the assessee and the alleged admissions of the directors and brokers, human probability is being used as a vague and convenient medium for the department’s conjectures. No addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect.
Kalpana Mukesh Ruia Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) As regards the issue of additions on merits for the bogus long-term capital gain (LTCG), we note that the same is based upon the modus operandi of earning bogus long-term capital gain in general mentioned by the assessing officer. It is further more based upon the statements obtained […]
Achal Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Lucknow) Documents clearly demonstrates that assessee had purchased shares through Brokers for which the payment was made through banking channels. The assessee had sold shares through authorized stock broker and payment was received through baking channels after deduction of STT. On Page 16 which is a copy of Bank account […]
DCIT Vs Ganesh Plantation Ltd. (ITAT Ahmadabad) AO on one hand has recorded his finding with respect to the shares of certain companies that its face value stands at ₹10 but the assessee has purchased the same at a higher value. The basis of arriving at the conclusion that the assessee has purchased the shares […]
Ritin Lakhmani Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In this case The ld. Pr. CIT has simply cut and pasted para 5 to para 5.12.3 and also para 6 from the orders he had passed u/s 263 of the Act from the order of the Pr. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act in the case of […]
