Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 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 assessee provided documentary evidence supporting the purchase and subsequent sale of shares leading to long-term capital gains (LTCG). The evidence included purchase bills, bank statements showing payment, demat account reflecting share holdings, online sale through a recognized broker with contract notes, and receipt of sale proceeds in the bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the LTCG as bogus based on statements from third parties involved in providing accommodation entries, denying exemption u/s 10(38). However, the AO failed to produce any incriminating material or evidence contradicting the assessee's documents. Mere uncorroborated statements from third parties cannot render a transaction bogus without cogent contrary evidence. Following judicial precedents, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the claim for LTCG exemption u/s 10(38) is valid, and the addition made by the AO was deleted. Consequently, the addition u/s 69C for alleged notional commission paid was also rejected.
The assessee provided documentary evidence supporting the purchase and subsequent sale of shares leading to long-term capital gains (LTCG). The evidence included purchase bills, bank statements showing payment, demat account reflecting share holdings, online sale through a recognized broker with contract notes, and receipt of sale proceeds in the bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the LTCG as bogus based on statements from third parties involved in providing accommodation entries, denying exemption u/s 10(38). However, the AO failed to produce any incriminating material or evidence contradicting the assessee's documents. Mere uncorroborated statements from third parties cannot render a transaction bogus without cogent contrary evidence. Following judicial precedents, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the claim for LTCG exemption u/s 10(38) is valid, and the addition made by the AO was deleted. Consequently, the addition u/s 69C for alleged notional commission paid was also rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
