Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal Upholds Income Tax Appeal Decision on Genuine Share Sale</h1> The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The case revolved ... Addition made u/s 68 of the Act – Transactions not genuine – Held that:- This is a case of sale of shares - Unlike the case where the assessee issues shares and collects money, in a case of sale of shoes the degree of burden of proof is not the same - In case of sale of shares, one asset i.e. shoes is converted into another asset i.e. cash - No new asset is acquired by the assessee - If sold at a higher rate, the difference is profit subject to tax - if the assessee give the identity of the person it should be sufficient – The decision in CIT vs. Medshave Health Care Ltd. [2010 (2) TMI 120 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - the assessee company had been holding the shares which were sold by it during the year and that it was on this basis that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had arrived at a conclusion that there was no reason to hold that the assessee company did not own these shares - there was no reason to hold these transactions to be sham transactions or the credits to be unexplained cash credits – Decided against Revenue. Issues:Genuineness of sale of shares made by the assessee.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pertaining to the Assessment Year 2003-04. The case involved the genuineness of the sale of shares by the assessee. The Assessing Officer initiated action under section 148 based on information received from the Investigation Wing regarding the purchasers of shares being involved in providing accommodation entries. The Revenue challenged the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the genuineness of the transactions was not substantiated by the assessee.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the evidences filed by the assessee and granted relief, stating that the assessee had discharged its burden of providing basic details required for verification regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. The Revenue raised multiple grounds of appeal, arguing that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions and obtained accommodation entries. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner did not appreciate that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under section 68 of the IT Act.During the proceedings, the Revenue's representative focused on the lack of explanation regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions related to the sale of shares. The assessee's counsel argued that the shares were purchased in earlier years and held as investments, providing supporting documents to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had purchased shares as investments in previous assessment years and held them as such, and the only dispute was regarding the genuineness of the sale of shares.The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws and emphasized that in the case of sale of shares, if the assessee provides the identity of the person, it should be considered sufficient. Citing precedents, the Tribunal highlighted that the sale proceeds were received through legitimate means, converting an asset into cash, and that the Assessing Officer's lack of investigation did not warrant disbelieving the transactions. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the genuineness of the sale of shares by the assessee, emphasizing the importance of providing basic details and establishing the legitimacy of transactions. The Tribunal's decision was based on the evidence produced by the assessee, the lack of investigation by the Assessing Officer, and the precedents supporting the genuineness of the transactions involving the sale of shares.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found