https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765746 The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of addition made by AO who treated LTCG from penny stock transactions as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The assessee had furnished complete documentation including bank statements, contract notes, demat records, and audited financials proving transaction genuineness. The tribunal found that assessee discharged the onus of proof while Revenue failed to provide substantive evidence of collusion or price manipulation. AO's addition was based on suspicion and generalization rather than concrete facts, making it unsustainable. Appeal decided against Revenue. en-us Thu, 06 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Feb 2025 09:12:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765746 The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of addition made by AO who treated LTCG from penny stock transactions as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The assessee had furnished complete documentation including bank statements, contract notes, demat records, and audited financials proving transaction genuineness. The tribunal found that assessee discharged the onus of proof while Revenue failed to provide substantive evidence of collusion or price manipulation. AO's addition was based on suspicion and generalization rather than concrete facts, making it unsustainable. Appeal decided against Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 06 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765746