https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465679 Whether the assessee's exempt LTCG under s.10(38) could be rejected as bogus and recharacterised depended on proof of the date of acquisition/allotment to determine the holding period. The Tribunal held that mere payment could not establish purchase; the purchase date can be recognised only on allotment, and demat statements only evidence dematerialisation, not allotment. However, the purchase itself could not be doubted, and the sale through the stock exchange was proved; the AO also failed to conduct independent enquiry to disprove the genuineness of the trading transactions. Consequently, the matter was remanded to allow the assessee a further opportunity to prove the allotment/purchase date for correct classification as STCG or LTCG, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 12:25:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465679 Whether the assessee's exempt LTCG under s.10(38) could be rejected as bogus and recharacterised depended on proof of the date of acquisition/allotment to determine the holding period. The Tribunal held that mere payment could not establish purchase; the purchase date can be recognised only on allotment, and demat statements only evidence dematerialisation, not allotment. However, the purchase itself could not be doubted, and the sale through the stock exchange was proved; the AO also failed to conduct independent enquiry to disprove the genuineness of the trading transactions. Consequently, the matter was remanded to allow the assessee a further opportunity to prove the allotment/purchase date for correct classification as STCG or LTCG, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465679