https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766213 ITAT Mumbai held that additions made under section 68 for bogus long-term capital gains lacked merit. The assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) was based on facts that the Assessing Officer failed to rebut. Documentary evidence could not be rejected without substantial contradictory evidence, especially when certain individuals were not produced for cross-examination. The tribunal directed deletion of section 68 additions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding estimated commission, finding share transactions genuine. en-us Tue, 31 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:02:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766213 ITAT Mumbai held that additions made under section 68 for bogus long-term capital gains lacked merit. The assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) was based on facts that the Assessing Officer failed to rebut. Documentary evidence could not be rejected without substantial contradictory evidence, especially when certain individuals were not produced for cross-examination. The tribunal directed deletion of section 68 additions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding estimated commission, finding share transactions genuine. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 31 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766213