Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Charitable registration turns on predominant purpose and genuine activities, while incidental fees and related-party rent require supporting adverse m...
MAT book-profit adjustments exclude disallowances for exempt-income expenditure and demerger expenditure unless expressly listed under the statutory c...
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 
