https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466516 Long term capital gains exemption under section 10(38) was contested where revenue relied on ongoing SEBI and SFIO investigations; the Tribunal held the assessing officer labelled the issuer a penny stock without placing independent evidence on record, and relied on material that did not exist at the time of assessment and was not before the CIT(A) or ITAT. The HC observed ongoing regulatory probes do not alter whether LTCG benefits may be claimed, accepted the Tribunal's factual findings as binding and concluded no substantial question of law arose. en-us Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Feb 2026 19:01:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466516 Long term capital gains exemption under section 10(38) was contested where revenue relied on ongoing SEBI and SFIO investigations; the Tribunal held the assessing officer labelled the issuer a penny stock without placing independent evidence on record, and relied on material that did not exist at the time of assessment and was not before the CIT(A) or ITAT. The HC observed ongoing regulatory probes do not alter whether LTCG benefits may be claimed, accepted the Tribunal's factual findings as binding and concluded no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466516