https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783154 ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the alleged bogus long-term capital gain from penny stock could not be taxed as unexplained cash credit under s.68, and exemption under s.10(38) was admissible. The assessee had produced contract notes, demat statements, bank statements, financials and other contemporaneous records, none of which were discredited by the lower authorities. The shares were purchased and sold on the stock exchange platform, delivery was taken, and the holding period was about five years. In absence of any adverse material, investigation, or allegation by SEBI or any agency, the onus under s.68 stood discharged. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:42:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783154 ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the alleged bogus long-term capital gain from penny stock could not be taxed as unexplained cash credit under s.68, and exemption under s.10(38) was admissible. The assessee had produced contract notes, demat statements, bank statements, financials and other contemporaneous records, none of which were discredited by the lower authorities. The shares were purchased and sold on the stock exchange platform, delivery was taken, and the holding period was about five years. In absence of any adverse material, investigation, or allegation by SEBI or any agency, the onus under s.68 stood discharged. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783154