https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784310 The dominant issue was whether the assessee's claimed exemption under s.10(38) could be denied by treating the reported LTCG as bogus. The Tribunal held that where purchase and sale were supported by unimpeachable documentary evidence, routed through normal banking channels, reflected in demat records, and effected through recognised mechanisms, the burden stood discharged. It further held that the Revenue cannot sustain an addition merely on generic investigation material or third-party statements without granting cross-examination, absent any specific "live nexus" linking the assessee to price manipulation, operators, or exit providers. Consequently, the deletion of the addition by the first appellate authority was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Mon, 25 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:34:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784310 The dominant issue was whether the assessee's claimed exemption under s.10(38) could be denied by treating the reported LTCG as bogus. The Tribunal held that where purchase and sale were supported by unimpeachable documentary evidence, routed through normal banking channels, reflected in demat records, and effected through recognised mechanisms, the burden stood discharged. It further held that the Revenue cannot sustain an addition merely on generic investigation material or third-party statements without granting cross-examination, absent any specific "live nexus" linking the assessee to price manipulation, operators, or exit providers. Consequently, the deletion of the addition by the first appellate authority was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 25 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784310