Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus LTCG from sale of shares. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were conducted on a regulated stock exchange platform with STT levied and funds routed through normal banking channels. The Tribunal found no evidence from SEBI indicating the shares were tainted. The AO's suspicion of share price manipulation was baseless as the assessee was a long-term investor with no direct involvement in any such activities. The AO's reliance on investigation findings without direct evidence was deemed insufficient. The non-compliance with procedural requirements u/s 142(3) was noted, as the AO did not allow cross-examination, violating statutory provisions. The CIT(A)'s dismissal based on preponderance of probability theory was rejected, and the addition u/s 68 for LTCG was deleted for both assessment years.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus LTCG from sale of shares. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were conducted on a regulated stock exchange platform with STT levied and funds routed through normal banking channels. The Tribunal found no evidence from SEBI indicating the shares were tainted. The AO's suspicion of share price manipulation was baseless as the assessee was a long-term investor with no direct involvement in any such activities. The AO's reliance on investigation findings without direct evidence was deemed insufficient. The non-compliance with procedural requirements u/s 142(3) was noted, as the AO did not allow cross-examination, violating statutory provisions. The CIT(A)'s dismissal based on preponderance of probability theory was rejected, and the addition u/s 68 for LTCG was deleted for both assessment years.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
