Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC upheld ITAT's decision rejecting AO's addition u/s 68 and allowing exemption u/s 10(38) for LTCG. The assessee demonstrated legitimate share transactions not appearing in AIR reports for penny stocks. ITAT found AO erred by not considering substantial documentation proving genuine investments, including BSE trading resumption notice for Wagend Infra Venture Limited. The transactions were validated as non-speculative long-term investments, supported by precedent of department accepting similar LTCG claims from assessee's father. CIT(A)'s detailed analysis of documentary evidence was affirmed by ITAT. HC found no substantial question of law warranting interference.
HC upheld ITAT's decision rejecting AO's addition u/s 68 and allowing exemption u/s 10(38) for LTCG. The assessee demonstrated legitimate share transactions not appearing in AIR reports for penny stocks. ITAT found AO erred by not considering substantial documentation proving genuine investments, including BSE trading resumption notice for Wagend Infra Venture Limited. The transactions were validated as non-speculative long-term investments, supported by precedent of department accepting similar LTCG claims from assessee's father. CIT(A)'s detailed analysis of documentary evidence was affirmed by ITAT. HC found no substantial question of law warranting interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.