Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.