Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
The Assessee, a regular investor in shares, made investments and sold a particular script when prices were high, resulting in Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the LTCG as bogus and made an addition u/s 68, relying solely on the report and statements recorded by the Investigating Wing, without conducting an independent inquiry or corroborating the evidence. The ITAT held that merely identifying a script as a penny stock does not render all transactions in it as bogus. The Assessee had produced documents showing genuine transactions, and there was no adverse report from SEBI or other authorities against the script. The AO erred in denying the Assessee's request for cross-examination of the person alleging accommodation entries through LTCG. The ITAT ruled in favor of the Assessee, emphasizing the need for an independent inquiry by the AO and corroboration of evidence from other sources before treating transactions as bogus.
The Assessee, a regular investor in shares, made investments and sold a particular script when prices were high, resulting in Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the LTCG as bogus and made an addition u/s 68, relying solely on the report and statements recorded by the Investigating Wing, without conducting an independent inquiry or corroborating the evidence. The ITAT held that merely identifying a script as a penny stock does not render all transactions in it as bogus. The Assessee had produced documents showing genuine transactions, and there was no adverse report from SEBI or other authorities against the script. The AO erred in denying the Assessee's request for cross-examination of the person alleging accommodation entries through LTCG. The ITAT ruled in favor of the Assessee, emphasizing the need for an independent inquiry by the AO and corroboration of evidence from other sources before treating transactions as bogus.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
