<?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 (12) TMI 107 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762527</link>
    <description>The ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals regarding bogus LTCG claims. The tribunal found that the assessee had adequately discharged the burden of proof under section 68 by producing relevant documents before authorities. Since no adverse order or penalty existed against the assessee and no role was established in share price rigging, the tribunal deleted the additions made by denying exemption under section 10(38) and allowed the LTCG exemption claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2024 08:44:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=780404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 107 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762527</link>
      <description>The ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals regarding bogus LTCG claims. The tribunal found that the assessee had adequately discharged the burden of proof under section 68 by producing relevant documents before authorities. Since no adverse order or penalty existed against the assessee and no role was established in share price rigging, the tribunal deleted the additions made by denying exemption under section 10(38) and allowed the LTCG exemption claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>