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 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...
Income Tax : The Calcutta High Court upheld the Tribunal's order after finding that the reopening of assessment proceeded on incorrect facts re...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion regarding penny stock transactions. The T...
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.
When AO has not brought any material on record to show that the assessee has paid over and above the purchase consideration as claimed and evident from the bank account then, in the absence of any evidence it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain.
Assessee come out with the plea that they were not provided with opportunity of cross-examining the witness, the investigation report was not furnished and proper opportunity was not provided of being heard. However we find that all these arguments raised by the assessee before us was never alleged before the AO when the matter was before them.
