<?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>2026 (4) TMI 1538 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790469</link>
    <description>Share-sale proceeds were accepted as genuine long-term capital gains because the assessee produced allotment records, demat statements, contract notes, broker ledger and banking evidence, and the shares were sold through a registered broker on the stock exchange with securities transaction tax paid. General investigation material and the theory of human probabilities were insufficient, as there was no specific evidence linking the assessee to price manipulation, accommodation entries, or any defect in the documents. The Revenue also failed to prove any actual unexplained expenditure to support the section 69C addition. The additions under sections 68 and 69C were therefore held unsustainable, and the exemption claim was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 08:51:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898419" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1538 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790469</link>
      <description>Share-sale proceeds were accepted as genuine long-term capital gains because the assessee produced allotment records, demat statements, contract notes, broker ledger and banking evidence, and the shares were sold through a registered broker on the stock exchange with securities transaction tax paid. General investigation material and the theory of human probabilities were insufficient, as there was no specific evidence linking the assessee to price manipulation, accommodation entries, or any defect in the documents. The Revenue also failed to prove any actual unexplained expenditure to support the section 69C addition. The additions under sections 68 and 69C were therefore held unsustainable, and the exemption claim was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790469</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>