<?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 560 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762980</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding disallowance of stock option transaction losses. The AO disallowed losses claiming options were sold below intrinsic value at unreasonably low prices. The tribunal held that AO&#039;s conclusion was based on conjecture without corroborative evidence or comparative transactions. The appellant provided contract notes and ledger accounts proving transactions occurred through BSE, which revenue authorities neither rebutted nor challenged. No independent verification was conducted by AO before making the addition. The appellant discharged their burden of proof, and revenue failed to substantiate claims with comparative data. The addition was deleted in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:15:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=781920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 560 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762980</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding disallowance of stock option transaction losses. The AO disallowed losses claiming options were sold below intrinsic value at unreasonably low prices. The tribunal held that AO&#039;s conclusion was based on conjecture without corroborative evidence or comparative transactions. The appellant provided contract notes and ledger accounts proving transactions occurred through BSE, which revenue authorities neither rebutted nor challenged. No independent verification was conducted by AO before making the addition. The appellant discharged their burden of proof, and revenue failed to substantiate claims with comparative data. The addition was deleted in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>