Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
The article addresses the burden to prove genuineness of share transactions claimed as exempt LTCG under 10(38), holding that documentary records (contract notes, demat statements, bank payment/receipt evidence and exchange trades) can discharge the onus and defeat additions. It states that reliance on investigation reports, prima facie anomalies in company accounts, or extraordinary price movement, without material linking the taxpayer to price manipulation, recycling of funds or accommodation entries, is insufficient to treat exempt gains as unexplained income; therefore the exemption should be accepted absent direct nexus or corroborative inquiry.
The article addresses the burden to prove genuineness of share transactions claimed as exempt LTCG under 10(38), holding that documentary records (contract notes, demat statements, bank payment/receipt evidence and exchange trades) can discharge the onus and defeat additions. It states that reliance on investigation reports, prima facie anomalies in company accounts, or extraordinary price movement, without material linking the taxpayer to price manipulation, recycling of funds or accommodation entries, is insufficient to treat exempt gains as unexplained income; therefore the exemption should be accepted absent direct nexus or corroborative inquiry.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.