Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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.