https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428245 Reopening under s.147 and the validity of the s.148A(d) order were challenged on the ground that the transactions reflected genuine capital gains. The HC held that the material recorded showed purchase of penny stock at face value and sale at about fifty times the price, with exempt LTCG claimed, and the AO's prima facie finding that the assessee was a beneficiary of routing unaccounted income through bogus LTCG/STCG; at the writ stage, the assessee's bifurcation of gains and computation could not be accepted, and the cited HC precedent on mere cash deposits was inapplicable. The s.148A(d) order was upheld and interference declined, with liberty to raise all contentions before the AO. en-us Thu, 01 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428245 Reopening under s.147 and the validity of the s.148A(d) order were challenged on the ground that the transactions reflected genuine capital gains. The HC held that the material recorded showed purchase of penny stock at face value and sale at about fifty times the price, with exempt LTCG claimed, and the AO's prima facie finding that the assessee was a beneficiary of routing unaccounted income through bogus LTCG/STCG; at the writ stage, the assessee's bifurcation of gains and computation could not be accepted, and the cited HC precedent on mere cash deposits was inapplicable. The s.148A(d) order was upheld and interference declined, with liberty to raise all contentions before the AO. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 01 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428245