<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (6) TMI 536 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753929</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding additions under section 68 for alleged bogus long-term capital gains from share transactions. The tribunal held that transactions conducted through BSE&#039;s regulated platform with SEBI-registered brokers, where STT was paid and proceeds routed through banking channels, cannot be deemed bogus without direct evidence from market regulator SEBI. The AO failed to provide material evidence linking the assessee to price manipulation groups, relying instead on suspicion and investigation wing findings without establishing direct cash trail involvement. The tribunal criticized CIT(A) for dismissing procedural violations under section 142(3), noting the AO&#039;s failure to allow cross-examination of brokers and operators whose statements were relied upon. The addition under section 68 was deleted, allowing the assessee&#039;s claim for exemption under section 10(38) for long-term capital gains on listed shares.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756252" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 536 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753929</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding additions under section 68 for alleged bogus long-term capital gains from share transactions. The tribunal held that transactions conducted through BSE&#039;s regulated platform with SEBI-registered brokers, where STT was paid and proceeds routed through banking channels, cannot be deemed bogus without direct evidence from market regulator SEBI. The AO failed to provide material evidence linking the assessee to price manipulation groups, relying instead on suspicion and investigation wing findings without establishing direct cash trail involvement. The tribunal criticized CIT(A) for dismissing procedural violations under section 142(3), noting the AO&#039;s failure to allow cross-examination of brokers and operators whose statements were relied upon. The addition under section 68 was deleted, allowing the assessee&#039;s claim for exemption under section 10(38) for long-term capital gains on listed shares.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>