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 Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was legally sound and unaffected by arguments based on 153C or Notification 18/2022. Still, it directed a full rehearing because the appellate authority issued non-speaking orders without examining the merits.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that detailed records, including Demat statements and contract notes, proved the genuineness of penny-stock transactions, nullifying additions under Sections 68 and 69C.
ITAT Delhi held that the addition of Rs. 73,99,475 as LTCG under Section 10(38) was unjustified, as the assessee provided complete evidence and no direct link to alleged bogus transactions was established.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that a notice under section 148 issued beyond the statutory period is invalid, quashing a ₹115 crore reassessment of a share-trading company. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to “surviving time” limits, making the reassessment void.
The Tribunal found that an off-market transaction, by itself, does not establish bogus capital gains when supporting records are intact and no direct involvement in price manipulation is shown. The exemption under Section 10(38) was therefore allowed, rejecting additions under Sections 68 and 69C.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the AO relied on outdated investigation data without linking it to the assessee’s transactions. Since the information pertained to a period before the assessee even acquired the shares, the reopening lacked jurisdictional foundation. As a result, the entire addition for alleged bogus LTCG was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that additions based on third-party search without giving the assessee a chance to examine evidence violated natural justice, deleting ₹2.04 Cr and ₹64.11 Lakh for AY 2018-19 & 2019-20.
ITAT Raipur allowed the appeal, holding that addition of Rs.11.84 lakh under Section 68 was unsustainable as no direct evidence linked the assessee to alleged share manipulation.
Reopening Based on Incorrect LTCG Information Invalid; Long-Held Penny-Stock Shares Treated as Genuine — ITAT Mumbai Quashes Additions
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be based on vague or unverified information; specific transactions must be identified to justify additions.
