Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 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 for alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains due to off-market cash purchase of shares. The taxpayer's claim for deduction u/s 10(38) was disallowed as the purchase payments lacked verifiable proof through normal banking channels. Despite holding the shares for over a year and paying STT on sale, the exemption was denied due to unverifiable cash purchases. The Tribunal found the transactions suspicious, considering the lack of credible documentation and the taxpayer's atypical share investment behavior. The decision affirmed the CIT(A)'s ruling against the taxpayer, emphasizing the need for proper sourcing evidence in such cases.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains due to off-market cash purchase of shares. The taxpayer's claim for deduction u/s 10(38) was disallowed as the purchase payments lacked verifiable proof through normal banking channels. Despite holding the shares for over a year and paying STT on sale, the exemption was denied due to unverifiable cash purchases. The Tribunal found the transactions suspicious, considering the lack of credible documentation and the taxpayer's atypical share investment behavior. The decision affirmed the CIT(A)'s ruling against the taxpayer, emphasizing the need for proper sourcing evidence in such cases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
