https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292648 The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the AO's action of treating the long-term capital gain on the sale of shares as bogus. The AO's reliance on statements lacked evidentiary value, and there was no concrete evidence linking the assessee to price manipulation. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of verification of sale transactions by the AO and ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the AO to grant the exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The decision was based on precedent and resulted in allowing the appeals of the assessee. en-us Wed, 29 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 03 Jan 2021 10:47:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292648 The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the AO's action of treating the long-term capital gain on the sale of shares as bogus. The AO's reliance on statements lacked evidentiary value, and there was no concrete evidence linking the assessee to price manipulation. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of verification of sale transactions by the AO and ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the AO to grant the exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The decision was based on precedent and resulted in allowing the appeals of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292648