https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204328 HC dismissed the revenue's appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. It upheld CIT(A) and Tribunal findings that the assessee's error in mentioning the share sale date as 22.03.2002 instead of the actual 20.03.2002 did not bar reliance on documentary evidence identifying the specific shares sold and their cost for computing capital loss. The HC also affirmed the allowance of outsourced work expenses allocated to a sister concern, accepting the factual finding that satisfactory explanation and supporting details had been furnished. The appeal was found meritless. en-us Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Nov 2025 14:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204328 HC dismissed the revenue's appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. It upheld CIT(A) and Tribunal findings that the assessee's error in mentioning the share sale date as 22.03.2002 instead of the actual 20.03.2002 did not bar reliance on documentary evidence identifying the specific shares sold and their cost for computing capital loss. The HC also affirmed the allowance of outsourced work expenses allocated to a sister concern, accepting the factual finding that satisfactory explanation and supporting details had been furnished. The appeal was found meritless. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204328