https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757592 The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding alleged bogus LTCG from penny stock transactions. The tribunal found that additions under section 68 based solely on investigation reports without independent inquiry were unjustified. Following precedent from Kamalesh Mohandas Lakhwani case, the tribunal held that mere suspicion of penny stock investment cannot justify additions under section 69B. The Bombay HC in Indravadan Jain case found no substantial question of law on similar penny stock issues. The tribunal concluded that VAS Infrastructure Ltd. transactions could not be deemed fictitious without evidence of manipulation, overturning the AO and CIT(A) orders. en-us Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Aug 2024 12:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757592 The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding alleged bogus LTCG from penny stock transactions. The tribunal found that additions under section 68 based solely on investigation reports without independent inquiry were unjustified. Following precedent from Kamalesh Mohandas Lakhwani case, the tribunal held that mere suspicion of penny stock investment cannot justify additions under section 69B. The Bombay HC in Indravadan Jain case found no substantial question of law on similar penny stock issues. The tribunal concluded that VAS Infrastructure Ltd. transactions could not be deemed fictitious without evidence of manipulation, overturning the AO and CIT(A) orders. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757592