https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778001 ITAT (MUMBAI) allowed the appeal, holding the claimed long-term capital gain was genuine and not a bogus accommodation entry so additions under s.68 were deleted. The tribunal found the assessee and family were regular investors, purchases were through convertible warrants and sales executed on the exchange with STT and contract notes, and the scrip was freely traded without any regulatory ban. Reliance on retracted witness statements and third-party documents was held weak, and the notional addition under s.69C for alleged unexplained expenses was also deleted. en-us Mon, 13 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Sep 2025 13:20:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778001 ITAT (MUMBAI) allowed the appeal, holding the claimed long-term capital gain was genuine and not a bogus accommodation entry so additions under s.68 were deleted. The tribunal found the assessee and family were regular investors, purchases were through convertible warrants and sales executed on the exchange with STT and contract notes, and the scrip was freely traded without any regulatory ban. Reliance on retracted witness statements and third-party documents was held weak, and the notional addition under s.69C for alleged unexplained expenses was also deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778001