https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772939 ITAT Lucknow remanded the case back to AO after CIT(A) deleted additions made for bogus LTCG claim under section 10(38). The tribunal noted that while assessee traded in scrips where prices were manipulated by operators, AO failed to provide proper opportunity of hearing and didn't allow cross-examination of witnesses. Following Calcutta HC precedent in PCIT vs Swati Bajaj, tribunal held that assessee must prove genuineness of transactions beyond mere documentation when claiming LTCG exemption on penny stocks with manipulated prices. Matter restored to AO for fresh consideration with proper evidence sharing and opportunity of hearing. en-us Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:38:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772939 ITAT Lucknow remanded the case back to AO after CIT(A) deleted additions made for bogus LTCG claim under section 10(38). The tribunal noted that while assessee traded in scrips where prices were manipulated by operators, AO failed to provide proper opportunity of hearing and didn't allow cross-examination of witnesses. Following Calcutta HC precedent in PCIT vs Swati Bajaj, tribunal held that assessee must prove genuineness of transactions beyond mere documentation when claiming LTCG exemption on penny stocks with manipulated prices. Matter restored to AO for fresh consideration with proper evidence sharing and opportunity of hearing. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772939