<?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>2025 (6) TMI 320 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772207</link>
    <description>The ITAT PUNE allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal regarding addition of sale consideration from equity shares of alleged penny stock company. The tribunal held that the assessee&#039;s claim of short-term capital gain was genuine as transactions were conducted through registered stock broker, recognized stock exchange, and banking channels. The CIT(A) had not confirmed addition u/s 68 and treated it as income from other sources. Revenue authorities failed to prove the assessee&#039;s direct involvement with promoters/entry operators manipulating share prices. The tribunal found merit in allowing deduction of purchase cost against sale consideration since purchases were made through proper banking channels.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 08:25:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=826834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 320 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772207</link>
      <description>The ITAT PUNE allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal regarding addition of sale consideration from equity shares of alleged penny stock company. The tribunal held that the assessee&#039;s claim of short-term capital gain was genuine as transactions were conducted through registered stock broker, recognized stock exchange, and banking channels. The CIT(A) had not confirmed addition u/s 68 and treated it as income from other sources. Revenue authorities failed to prove the assessee&#039;s direct involvement with promoters/entry operators manipulating share prices. The tribunal found merit in allowing deduction of purchase cost against sale consideration since purchases were made through proper banking channels.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>