Revenue neutrality in domestic related-party loans can require deletion of interest transfer pricing adjustments after domestic-transaction verificati...
Pre-enactment land-sale agreements escape stamp-duty value substitution where substantial banking-channel consideration was received before Section 43...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 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 
