https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783633 The dominant issue was whether the AO was justified in treating the assessee's long-term capital gains from sale of shares as bogus and denying exemption under s.10(38) merely because SEBI had flagged the scrips as suspicious. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition after considering the assessee's evidence and relying on a co-ordinate Bench decision accepting similar gains from the same scrip, and further noted the AO's own acknowledgment of the company's standing and the absence of any finding of collusion with promoters to rig gains. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783633 The dominant issue was whether the AO was justified in treating the assessee's long-term capital gains from sale of shares as bogus and denying exemption under s.10(38) merely because SEBI had flagged the scrips as suspicious. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition after considering the assessee's evidence and relying on a co-ordinate Bench decision accepting similar gains from the same scrip, and further noted the AO's own acknowledgment of the company's standing and the absence of any finding of collusion with promoters to rig gains. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783633