Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1021 to 1040 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 
