TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>LTCG exemption denied on penny stocks with unreasonable price rises treated as unexplained cash under section 68</h1> <h3>Shri Hitendra C. Ghadia, Smt. Ilaben K. Ghadia, Smt. Ushaben H. Ghadia, Versus DCIT, CC-1 (1), Mumbai</h3> Shri Hitendra C. Ghadia, Smt. Ilaben K. Ghadia, Smt. Ushaben H. Ghadia, Versus DCIT, CC-1 (1), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 10(38) for Long-Term Capital Gain.2. Addition of unexplained acquisition of bullion and diamond under section 68.3. Addition of unexplained investment in electronics under section 68.Summary:Issue 1: Disallowance of Exemption Claimed under Section 10(38) for Long-Term Capital GainThe assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act for Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this exemption, treating the LTCG as bogus and added it under section 68, citing the suspicious nature of the transactions. The AO relied on investigations by the Directorate General of Income Tax (DGIT) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which revealed that the transactions involved penny stocks and were manipulated to generate tax-exempt income. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and that the entire scheme was a colorable device to plough back unaccounted income.Issue 2: Addition of Unexplained Acquisition of Bullion and Diamond under Section 68The AO added Rs. 14,72,630/- under section 68 for the unexplained acquisition of 400 grams of bullion and diamonds. The Tribunal found that the documents provided by the assessee were ante-dated and involved third-party tax invoices, which required re-examination. The matter was restored to the jurisdictional AO for further verification and re-examination to ensure sustainable and cogent reasons are on record.Issue 3: Addition of Unexplained Investment in Electronics under Section 68The AO added Rs. 1,90,900/- under section 68 for unexplained investments in electronics, including a refrigerator, washing machine, Sony battery, and laptop. Similar to the previous issue, the Tribunal found the documents provided by the assessee to be ante-dated and involving third-party tax invoices. The matter was restored to the jurisdictional AO for re-examination and verification.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the disallowance of exemption under section 10(38) for LTCG and upheld the AO's decision. However, the issues concerning the addition of unexplained acquisition of bullion and diamonds, and unexplained investment in electronics were restored to the jurisdictional AO for re-examination and verification. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
