<?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>Tax Department&#039;s Appeal Against LTCG Exemption Under Section 10(38) Dismissed Due to Filing Delay (38)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86362</link>
    <description>The SC dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging a Gujarat HC ruling due to an unexplained 292-day delay in filing. The underlying case concerned the Revenue&#039;s treatment of proceeds from shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd as unexplained income under s.68 rather than LTCG exempt under s.10(38). The HC had ruled in the assessee&#039;s favor, finding that exemption claims cannot be deemed bogus based on mere presumption when: (1) no evidence contradicted the assessee&#039;s position, (2) SEBI had not found the shares to be rigged, and (3) the assessee had held the shares for approximately two and a half years before selling them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2025 08:32:02 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2025 08:32:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=805029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tax Department&#039;s Appeal Against LTCG Exemption Under Section 10(38) Dismissed Due to Filing Delay (38)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86362</link>
      <description>The SC dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging a Gujarat HC ruling due to an unexplained 292-day delay in filing. The underlying case concerned the Revenue&#039;s treatment of proceeds from shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd as unexplained income under s.68 rather than LTCG exempt under s.10(38). The HC had ruled in the assessee&#039;s favor, finding that exemption claims cannot be deemed bogus based on mere presumption when: (1) no evidence contradicted the assessee&#039;s position, (2) SEBI had not found the shares to be rigged, and (3) the assessee had held the shares for approximately two and a half years before selling them.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2025 08:32:02 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>