<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (12) TMI 1430 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783890</link>
    <description>Whether gains on sale of shares were LTCG/LTCL or STCG depended on correct determination of period and cost of acquisition. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) rightly accepted the assessee&#039;s documentary evidence (including tranche-wise acquisition details), corroborated through remand proceedings, establishing correct acquisition dates and costs; the Revenue failed to rebut these findings, so allowance of LTCL/LTCG treatment and rejection of AO&#039;s nil-cost/STCG approach were upheld and the Revenue&#039;s ground was dismissed. Whether excess salary was taxable turned on statutory recovery under the Companies Act; applying HC precedent, recovered sums were not income, so deletion was upheld and the ground dismissed. Whether addition u/s 69A for alleged foreign property investment was sustainable depended on source linkage; with funds traced to family entities and the purchaser entity, deletion was upheld and the ground dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=873685" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1430 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783890</link>
      <description>Whether gains on sale of shares were LTCG/LTCL or STCG depended on correct determination of period and cost of acquisition. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) rightly accepted the assessee&#039;s documentary evidence (including tranche-wise acquisition details), corroborated through remand proceedings, establishing correct acquisition dates and costs; the Revenue failed to rebut these findings, so allowance of LTCL/LTCG treatment and rejection of AO&#039;s nil-cost/STCG approach were upheld and the Revenue&#039;s ground was dismissed. Whether excess salary was taxable turned on statutory recovery under the Companies Act; applying HC precedent, recovered sums were not income, so deletion was upheld and the ground dismissed. Whether addition u/s 69A for alleged foreign property investment was sustainable depended on source linkage; with funds traced to family entities and the purchaser entity, deletion was upheld and the ground dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783890</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>