<?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 (3) TMI 1980 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470088</link>
    <description>Penny-stock long-term capital gains claimed through a pre-arranged accommodation-entry scheme are not eligible for exemption merely because contract notes, demat records and banking channels exist. Applying human probability and preponderance-of-probabilities tests, the analysis treats abnormal price movement, weak financial fundamentals, investigation material and failure to establish genuine appreciation as sufficient to require proof of genuineness from the taxpayer. A cross-examination objection fails where an available opportunity was not used and no specific prejudice is shown. Even where transactions are bogus, the proposed addition must be confined to the actual long-term capital gain claimed as exempt, not the gross sale consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:59:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1980 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470088</link>
      <description>Penny-stock long-term capital gains claimed through a pre-arranged accommodation-entry scheme are not eligible for exemption merely because contract notes, demat records and banking channels exist. Applying human probability and preponderance-of-probabilities tests, the analysis treats abnormal price movement, weak financial fundamentals, investigation material and failure to establish genuine appreciation as sufficient to require proof of genuineness from the taxpayer. A cross-examination objection fails where an available opportunity was not used and no specific prejudice is shown. Even where transactions are bogus, the proposed addition must be confined to the actual long-term capital gain claimed as exempt, not the gross sale consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>