https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468540 Contemporaneous contract notes, bank statements, demat records and purchase-sale details supported the genuineness of the share transactions, so the long-term capital gain could not be treated as bogus penny stock income under section 68. The addition failed because the Assessing Officer relied mainly on suspicion and general investigation material without assessee-specific adverse evidence, and the absence of effective cross-examination further weakened the assessment. In these circumstances, the documentary evidence was accepted as sufficient to establish the transaction through registered and banking channels, and the claimed exempt long-term capital gain was sustained. en-us Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2026 18:16:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468540 Contemporaneous contract notes, bank statements, demat records and purchase-sale details supported the genuineness of the share transactions, so the long-term capital gain could not be treated as bogus penny stock income under section 68. The addition failed because the Assessing Officer relied mainly on suspicion and general investigation material without assessee-specific adverse evidence, and the absence of effective cross-examination further weakened the assessment. In these circumstances, the documentary evidence was accepted as sufficient to establish the transaction through registered and banking channels, and the claimed exempt long-term capital gain was sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468540