Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
