Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
