Maintainability of a Section 7 insolvency petition against a financial service provider denied; appeal dismissed for non maintainability and complex d...
Provisional attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires exhaustion of statutory remedies; impugned order set aside, appeal to tribuna...
Restoration of property under Prevention of Money Laundering Act after attachment dispute rendered academic; possession directed to successful resolut...
Goods Transport Agency services via e commerce portals: consignment note creates custody and liability and enables exemption for unregistered recipien...
The article addresses challenge to tax additions treating...
Genuineness of investment evidence determines LTCG entitlement; non specific regulatory reports cannot displace transaction specific documentary proof.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The article addresses challenge to tax additions treating claimed long term capital gains as non genuine and invoking unexplained cash credit and alleged commission additions; it explains that where the assessee produced DEMAT records, bank statements, cheques, share certificates and broker notes and had paid MAT, the authorities erred in rejecting LTCG claim on a generalized SEBI modus operandi suspicion because cited SEBI orders did not pertain to the assessee's transactions; the piece concludes that evidentiary burden requires transaction specific adverse findings and that similar findings apply to the subsequent assessment year, leading to allowance of the appeals.
The article addresses challenge to tax additions treating claimed long term capital gains as non genuine and invoking unexplained cash credit and alleged commission additions; it explains that where the assessee produced DEMAT records, bank statements, cheques, share certificates and broker notes and had paid MAT, the authorities erred in rejecting LTCG claim on a generalized SEBI modus operandi suspicion because cited SEBI orders did not pertain to the assessee's transactions; the piece concludes that evidentiary burden requires transaction specific adverse findings and that similar findings apply to the subsequent assessment year, leading to allowance of the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.