https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787309 Assessee's claim of exempt long-term capital gains under section 10(38) was upheld because the Assessing Officer conducted specific enquiries, issued notices, verified documentary evidence (contract notes, DMAT, broker ledgers, purchase proofs) and accepted the claim; therefore exercise of revisionary jurisdiction was unjustified where the superior authority relied on a retracted search statement without independent corroboration. Operative effect: the section 263 revisional order was quashed and the assessment under section 153C stands, affirming that mere suspicion or superior disagreement does not render an enquiry-based assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. en-us Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:34:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787309 Assessee's claim of exempt long-term capital gains under section 10(38) was upheld because the Assessing Officer conducted specific enquiries, issued notices, verified documentary evidence (contract notes, DMAT, broker ledgers, purchase proofs) and accepted the claim; therefore exercise of revisionary jurisdiction was unjustified where the superior authority relied on a retracted search statement without independent corroboration. Operative effect: the section 263 revisional order was quashed and the assessment under section 153C stands, affirming that mere suspicion or superior disagreement does not render an enquiry-based assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787309