https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776771 ITAT, Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, holding that revision under section 263 was unjustified. The AO had confronted the assessee about the penny-stock transactions, examined purchase/sale contract notes, bank statements and broker ledger, and correctly concluded that long-term capital gains were exempt under section 10(38). The Tribunal found no lapse by the AO or the assessee and held that the Principal CIT's interference was unwarranted since the AO had properly verified evidence and reached a lawful conclusion. en-us Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Aug 2025 08:38:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776771 ITAT, Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, holding that revision under section 263 was unjustified. The AO had confronted the assessee about the penny-stock transactions, examined purchase/sale contract notes, bank statements and broker ledger, and correctly concluded that long-term capital gains were exempt under section 10(38). The Tribunal found no lapse by the AO or the assessee and held that the Principal CIT's interference was unwarranted since the AO had properly verified evidence and reached a lawful conclusion. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776771