<?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>2025 (2) TMI 1938 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468910</link>
    <description>Belated filing was condoned where notice of the first appellate proceedings had not been effectively served at the e-mail address given in the appeal papers, and the delay was found neither intentional nor deliberate. The Tribunal also stated that long-term capital gain could not be treated as unexplained cash credit when the share transactions were genuine, routed through banking channels and a recognised stock exchange, with STT paid and the shares held for more than seven years; the related addition for unexplained expenditure as commission consequently could not survive. The reopening challenge was treated as covered by the earlier common order, and the additions were deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 20:05:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903724" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1938 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468910</link>
      <description>Belated filing was condoned where notice of the first appellate proceedings had not been effectively served at the e-mail address given in the appeal papers, and the delay was found neither intentional nor deliberate. The Tribunal also stated that long-term capital gain could not be treated as unexplained cash credit when the share transactions were genuine, routed through banking channels and a recognised stock exchange, with STT paid and the shares held for more than seven years; the related addition for unexplained expenditure as commission consequently could not survive. The reopening challenge was treated as covered by the earlier common order, and the additions were deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468910</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>