Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
In this case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) examined the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding long-term capital gains (LTCG) from share transactions treated as sham, additions u/ss 68 or 69A for unexplained credits, and addition u/s 69C for alleged unaccounted commission paid. The key points are: The claim for exemption on LTCG cannot be denied merely on suspicion or surmises regarding penny stocks, disregarding direct evidence like contract notes, banking channels, STT payment, and demat account. The AO must provide cogent corroborative material to establish unaccounted income routed back. Mere share value appreciation cannot justify treating transactions as fictitious. The shares were acquired through preferential allotment directly from the company, not brokers. Payment was through banking channels, delivery taken in demat account, held for over a year, contract notes issued, and sold on recognized stock exchange. SEBI did not declare the investee company bogus. Additions u/s 68 apply to credits in books of account, not bank statements. Section 69A addition was made solely on the presumption of redeploying undisclosed income as capital gains without independent tangible evidence of undisclosed income or bogus transactions. The 6.5% addition.
In this case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) examined the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding long-term capital gains (LTCG) from share transactions treated as sham, additions u/ss 68 or 69A for unexplained credits, and addition u/s 69C for alleged unaccounted commission paid. The key points are: The claim for exemption on LTCG cannot be denied merely on suspicion or surmises regarding penny stocks, disregarding direct evidence like contract notes, banking channels, STT payment, and demat account. The AO must provide cogent corroborative material to establish unaccounted income routed back. Mere share value appreciation cannot justify treating transactions as fictitious. The shares were acquired through preferential allotment directly from the company, not brokers. Payment was through banking channels, delivery taken in demat account, held for over a year, contract notes issued, and sold on recognized stock exchange. SEBI did not declare the investee company bogus. Additions u/s 68 apply to credits in books of account, not bank statements. Section 69A addition was made solely on the presumption of redeploying undisclosed income as capital gains without independent tangible evidence of undisclosed income or bogus transactions. The 6.5% addition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
