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...
ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital gains from share sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit when the assessee provides contract notes, demat records, and bank statements proving the transactions.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the Section 68 addition on LTCG from listed shares, holding that documentary evidence, STT payment, and banking trail were not disproved by the Revenue.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of addition under Section 68, holding that reliance on an investigation report without independent verification and without disproving documentary evidence cannot sustain bogus LTCG allegations.
The Tribunal held that mere reliance on an Investigation Wing report without linking the assessee to price manipulation cannot justify treating LTCG as bogus. Documentary evidence and banking transactions supported genuineness.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains could not be treated as bogus where documentary evidence supported the transactions and no material connected the assessee to price manipulation. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to revise an assessment when the very issue was already under challenge before the appellate authority. Parallel revision proceedings were held to be impermissible.
The tribunal held that suspicion, abnormal price rise, or third-party reports are insufficient to deny LTCG exemption. Revenue must establish direct involvement of the taxpayer in price rigging.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal solely on account of unexplained delay, leaving the High Court’s decision undisturbed and reinforcing procedural discipline in tax litigation.
The High Court upheld deletion of additions where share sale transactions were supported by contract notes, demat records, and bank statements, and no contrary evidence was found.
The Tribunal held that reopening based only on generalized information about a scrip, without independent inquiry or linkage to the taxpayer, is invalid. Entire addition on alleged bogus LTCG was deleted.
