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 ...
Bogus share transactions were alleged, and the Assessing Officer (AO) denied the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 10(38) by treating the sale consideration of shares as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. However, the Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish the assessee's involvement in price rigging, and the sale transactions were conducted on the stock exchange platform, with the sale consideration received through banking channels. Consequently, the sale consideration cannot be considered unexplained cash credit u/s 68. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition u/s 68 and allow the exemption u/s 10(38). Regarding the violation of natural justice principles, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that not providing an opportunity for cross-examination did not violate natural justice, as the statements were not relied upon for making the addition. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
Bogus share transactions were alleged, and the Assessing Officer (AO) denied the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 10(38) by treating the sale consideration of shares as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. However, the Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish the assessee's involvement in price rigging, and the sale transactions were conducted on the stock exchange platform, with the sale consideration received through banking channels. Consequently, the sale consideration cannot be considered unexplained cash credit u/s 68. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition u/s 68 and allow the exemption u/s 10(38). Regarding the violation of natural justice principles, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that not providing an opportunity for cross-examination did not violate natural justice, as the statements were not relied upon for making the addition. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
