Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 68 as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of LTCG claimed u/s 10(38). The AO found discrepancies in off-market share purchases, delay in dematerialization, and pooling shares with broker. Despite STT payment, the SC ruling highlighted manipulative transactions. The assessee couldn't explain the adverse evidence, leading to confirmation of AO's findings. The onus to prove genuineness wasn't met, making the LTCG claim a facade. The addition was upheld as the assessee failed to establish the credit entry's genuineness. The entire sale consideration wasn't added u/s 68, but the LTCG claim was deemed sham. Decision favored the Revenue due to lack of evidence from the assessee.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 68 as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of LTCG claimed u/s 10(38). The AO found discrepancies in off-market share purchases, delay in dematerialization, and pooling shares with broker. Despite STT payment, the SC ruling highlighted manipulative transactions. The assessee couldn't explain the adverse evidence, leading to confirmation of AO's findings. The onus to prove genuineness wasn't met, making the LTCG claim a facade. The addition was upheld as the assessee failed to establish the credit entry's genuineness. The entire sale consideration wasn't added u/s 68, but the LTCG claim was deemed sham. Decision favored the Revenue due to lack of evidence from the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
