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...
ITAT Mumbai ruled that denying effective cross-examination of key witnesses, like R.K. Kedia, violated natural justice, vitiating the income tax assessment in a bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) commission case.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted an addition of ₹46 lakh in the Rekha Rajesh Jogani case, ruling that the Income Tax Department cannot rely solely on general ‘penny stock’ investigation reports to deny Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG).
ITAT Jabalpur upholds CIT(A)’s deletion of addition u/s 68; holds that mere reliance on Investigation Wing report without independent verification is unsustainable.
The ITAT Nagpur allowed the appeal of Bhivraj Mohanlal Jain, deleting the unexplained investment addition of lakhs under Section , ruling that the transactions were genuine intraday trading resulting in a marginal profit.
ITAT Delhi dismissed Revenue’s appeal against Satya Prakash Gupta regarding an addition of ₹1.61 crore for alleged bogus Short Term Capital Loss, as tax effect was below CBDT’s monetary limit.
The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the deletion of a ₹1.17 Lakh addition made under Section 68 for alleged penny stock gains, ruling that the taxpayer had incurred a Short Term Capital Loss and had not claimed any exempt LTCG u/s 10(38),
ITAT Delhi dismisses Revenue appeal, holding an investor’s LTCG from stock exchange transactions as genuine, reaffirming “suspicion is not substitute for proof.”
ITAT Delhi deleted Rs.8 lakh penny stock addition u/s 68. AO relied only on Investigation Wing report. Tribunal rules addition cannot be made without independent verification.
Delhi ITAT deletes a Rs.190 Cr tax addition on share premium, citing impermissible double taxation. The ruling upholds the principle that the same income cannot be taxed twice.
The ITAT in Kolkata set aside a ₹9.32 crore tax addition on share sales by Superdeal Resources, ruling that well-documented transactions are not bogus. The order underscores the need for substantive evidence over suspicion.
