<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Penny stock capital gains additions fail where documentary evidence is unrebutted and no specific material proves manipulation.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98142</link>
    <description>Bogus long-term capital gains additions on listed shares under section 68 cannot be sustained on suspicion alone where the assessee produces purchase records, demat statements, stock exchange sale documents and banking evidence, and the Revenue brings no specific rebuttal. The Tribunal held that general investigation inputs and allegations of penny stock accommodation entries do not displace documentary proof unless there is cogent material linking the assessee to a sham or manipulated transaction. On similar facts, including decisions involving the same scrip, the CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of the addition was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:56 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penny stock capital gains additions fail where documentary evidence is unrebutted and no specific material proves manipulation.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98142</link>
      <description>Bogus long-term capital gains additions on listed shares under section 68 cannot be sustained on suspicion alone where the assessee produces purchase records, demat statements, stock exchange sale documents and banking evidence, and the Revenue brings no specific rebuttal. The Tribunal held that general investigation inputs and allegations of penny stock accommodation entries do not displace documentary proof unless there is cogent material linking the assessee to a sham or manipulated transaction. On similar facts, including decisions involving the same scrip, the CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of the addition was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:56 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98142</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>