Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
