Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 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 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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
