LTCG exemption under section 10(38) upheld for listed shares with proper documentation and STT payment (38)

The MP HC upheld ITAT's deletion of addition regarding alleged bogus LTCG transactions in Sunrise Asian Ltd. shares. The court found that shares were listed on BSE, purchased through demat account, payments made through banking channels, and STT paid, fulfilling all conditions for section 10(38) exemption. The court rejected revenue's contention that shares were bogus, noting they were lawfully issued under Companies Act with proper procedures. The investigation report relied upon by AO was never provided to assessee, violating natural justice principles. Mumbai ITAT had decided similar cases involving same scrip in favor of assessees. No substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the condonation of delay in filing appeals, question of admission, substantial question of law u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the legality of addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Condonation of Delay:
The court allowed the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals, thereby condoning the delay. The order covered a total of 33 appeals which were heard analogously and disposed of by a common order due to identical substantial questions of law involved.

Substantial Question of Law:
The main issue revolved around whether the appeal involved any substantial question of law as required under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant challenged the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer, questioning the justification for the deletion and the involvement of the respondent in alleged manipulation of share prices.

Legality of Addition:
The appellant contended that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, arguing that the shares in question were not genuine and were part of a sham transaction. The respondent, on the other hand, claimed lawful exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, stating that all conditions for exemption had been met and the shares were lawfully issued.

Judgment:
The court found no merit in the bunch of appeals and dismissed them, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. It was held that the appeal did not meet the provisions of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for admission. The court referred to previous decisions by High Courts and the Apex Court to support its conclusion.

---