https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461032 ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal against addition of long term capital gains under section 68. The tribunal found that AO relied solely on investigation department report without additional evidence to prove accommodation entries. Assessee provided complete documentation including demat account records and bank transaction details, which remained uncontroverted. AO failed to provide cross-examination opportunity for statement providers. Following precedents from Bombay HC in Shyam R Pawar and Ziauddin A Siddique cases, tribunal directed deletion of the addition. en-us Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Mar 2025 19:19:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461032 ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal against addition of long term capital gains under section 68. The tribunal found that AO relied solely on investigation department report without additional evidence to prove accommodation entries. Assessee provided complete documentation including demat account records and bank transaction details, which remained uncontroverted. AO failed to provide cross-examination opportunity for statement providers. Following precedents from Bombay HC in Shyam R Pawar and Ziauddin A Siddique cases, tribunal directed deletion of the addition. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461032