Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Surat (Appellate Tribunal) considered an appeal regarding the addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus LTCG and unexplained cash credit. The appellant's claim for exemption u/s 10(38) in relation to surplus earned on the sale of shares held for the long term was rejected. The Tribunal held that the assessee conducted the share sale through BSE, paid security transaction tax, and there were no allegations against the share broker for price manipulation. Consequently, there was no justification for treating the LTCG as unexplained cash credit without cogent evidence. The decision favored the assessee.
The ITAT Surat (Appellate Tribunal) considered an appeal regarding the addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus LTCG and unexplained cash credit. The appellant's claim for exemption u/s 10(38) in relation to surplus earned on the sale of shares held for the long term was rejected. The Tribunal held that the assessee conducted the share sale through BSE, paid security transaction tax, and there were no allegations against the share broker for price manipulation. Consequently, there was no justification for treating the LTCG as unexplained cash credit without cogent evidence. The decision favored the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
