https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759031 The ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee in a case involving alleged bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) treated as unexplained credit under section 68. The assessee claimed genuine share transactions resulting in LTCG exempt under section 10(38). The Revenue alleged these were accommodation entries based on an investigation report regarding one Naresh Jain and associates. The ITAT found the assessee discharged its burden of proving transaction genuineness, while the Revenue failed to demonstrate how the transactions were bogus or premeditated. The court noted a five-six year gap between purchase and sale at varying prices, transactions through prominent broker Sharekhan Ltd., and multiple other scrips traded by the assessee. en-us Wed, 04 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:10:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759031 The ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee in a case involving alleged bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) treated as unexplained credit under section 68. The assessee claimed genuine share transactions resulting in LTCG exempt under section 10(38). The Revenue alleged these were accommodation entries based on an investigation report regarding one Naresh Jain and associates. The ITAT found the assessee discharged its burden of proving transaction genuineness, while the Revenue failed to demonstrate how the transactions were bogus or premeditated. The court noted a five-six year gap between purchase and sale at varying prices, transactions through prominent broker Sharekhan Ltd., and multiple other scrips traded by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759031