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 : Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Calcutta decision in CIT vs. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co Ltd regarding disallowance of cap...
Income Tax : Explore the Calcutta High Court judgment in PCIT Vs Kaushalya Dealers Pvt Ltd under Income Tax Act 1961, focusing on Section 263 j...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur rules that AO's non-addition of bogus LTCG does not make the order automatically erroneous. Detailed analysis of Vipul...
Income Tax : Rajasthan HC dismisses Income Tax Dept's appeal, upholds ITAT decision deleting additions on capital gain from share sale. Read th...
Income Tax : MP High Court dismisses the Income Tax Dept's appeal against Gopal Tayal, upholding ITAT's decision on alleged bogus penny stock L...
Suman Poddar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The evidences put forth by the Revenue regarding the entry operation fairly leads to a conclusion that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entry receipts in the form of long-term capital gains. The assessee has failed to prove that the share transactions are genuine and […]
No doubt assessee has meticulously completed the paper work by routing his entire investment through banking channel but the results thereof are altogether beyond human probabilities. Because neither in the past nor in the subsequent years, assessee has indulged into any such investment having huge windfall. Had the assessee been so intelligent qua the intricacies of the share market, he would have definitely undertaken such risk taking activities in the past or future by making such investment in the unknown stock. So, we are of the considered view that what appears to be apparent in making investment by the assessee in unknown stock is not real when examined the whole transaction of sale and purchase of the stock with huge windfall to the assessee.
M/s. Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We are of the considered view that the onus is on the assessee company to bring on record the cogent evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction which in the instant case the assessee is not […]
Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-21, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) […]
We note that the fact that neither the statement relied on by the authorities below were provided to the assessee nor any cross examination was allowed to prove the veracity of the statement. We note that the fact that in the statement of third party, the name of the assessee was not implicated. Even otherwise, according to Learned Counsel, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee on the basis of untested statements without allowing opportunity of cross-examination.
Assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares could not be held as bogus on the ground of information from Investigation Wing in case assessee had filed evidences like transaction statement of stock broker, contract notes transactions statement of Demat acount, statement of account from brokers, and bank statement, etc., to prove genuineness of transactions of purchase and sale of shares.
Where sale and purchase of shares had taken place only through banking channel at Bombay Stock Exchange and were supported by contract note, income from long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of listed equity shares after payment of STT were rightly claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and AO was precluded in making addition of LTCG as unaccounted income in absence of any supporting evidence.
Assessee was not entitled to claim long term capital gain as exempt u/s 10(38) and the same was deemed to be income under section 69A as it was revealed that purchase and sale of shares were arranged transactions by assessee to create bogus profit in the garb of tax exempt long term capital gain by well organised network of entry providers with the sole motive to sell such entries to enable the beneficiary to account for the undisclosed income for a consideration or commission.
Assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an unknown company had jumped to an higher amount in no time when the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price rise. Also, assessee failed to provide details of persons who purchased the shares. Clearly, assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction, meant to account for undisclsoed income in the garb of long-term capital gain, therefore, such gain had to be assessed as undisclosed credit under section 68.
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 […]
