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...
The assessee had fully disclosed the share transactions and claimed exemption under Section 10(38) in the original return. The ITAT ruled that reopening was unsustainable because the reasons recorded did not demonstrate how any income had actually escaped assessment.
Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of addition made under Section 69A after finding that the assessee produced complete documentary evidence for purchase and sale of LDPL shares. The Tribunal ruled that suspicion and investigation reports alone cannot override genuine DEMAT, bank and broker records.
ITAT Delhi noted that confirmations from the company and broker regarding share transactions were available but not adequately considered by the Assessing Officer. The case was remanded for denovo assessment.
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.
