https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784543 The dominant issue was whether an addition under s. 69 could be sustained on the allegation of bogus share transactions in a penny-stock scrip used to generate accommodation long-term capital gains/short-term capital loss. The Tribunal held that the assessee's purchase and sale of shares in the same scrip could not be disbelieved because, in an earlier ITAT decision involving an identical scrip and the same assessment year, identical additions had been deleted, and no distinguishing facts were shown. Consequently, the AO was directed to delete the s. 69 addition, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:03:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784543 The dominant issue was whether an addition under s. 69 could be sustained on the allegation of bogus share transactions in a penny-stock scrip used to generate accommodation long-term capital gains/short-term capital loss. The Tribunal held that the assessee's purchase and sale of shares in the same scrip could not be disbelieved because, in an earlier ITAT decision involving an identical scrip and the same assessment year, identical additions had been deleted, and no distinguishing facts were shown. Consequently, the AO was directed to delete the s. 69 addition, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784543