Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of alleged bogus long-term capital gain u/s 10(38) concerning a transaction involving shares of a company flagged as a penny stock by the Investigation Wing. The Tribunal noted that the denial of benefit solely relied on the investigation report without evidence of collusion between the broker and the taxpayer. The absence of cross-examination opportunity for the taxpayer on crucial statements was also highlighted. Referring to a High Court ruling, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of proving the genuineness of share transactions through documented evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision to grant the taxpayer the benefit of section 10(38) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for lacking merit.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of alleged bogus long-term capital gain u/s 10(38) concerning a transaction involving shares of a company flagged as a penny stock by the Investigation Wing. The Tribunal noted that the denial of benefit solely relied on the investigation report without evidence of collusion between the broker and the taxpayer. The absence of cross-examination opportunity for the taxpayer on crucial statements was also highlighted. Referring to a High Court ruling, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of proving the genuineness of share transactions through documented evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision to grant the taxpayer the benefit of section 10(38) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
