<?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 (8) TMI 1771 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797897</link>
    <description>Long-term capital gain from stock-exchange share sales cannot be treated as unexplained income merely because of abnormal price appreciation, investigation material, or alleged price manipulation. Contemporaneous evidence of purchase, banking-channel payment, dematerialisation, exchange-based sale, and receipt of consideration supports transaction genuineness unless cogent material links the taxpayer to manipulation, accommodation entries, or conversion of unaccounted money. Suspicion arising from regulatory action concerning the company or investigation reports does not override that evidentiary record. A binding jurisdictional view on comparable facts prevails over a conflicting non-jurisdictional approach based on preponderance of probabilities; consequential unexplained-income and alleged commission additions are unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2026 14:35:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=919720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 1771 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797897</link>
      <description>Long-term capital gain from stock-exchange share sales cannot be treated as unexplained income merely because of abnormal price appreciation, investigation material, or alleged price manipulation. Contemporaneous evidence of purchase, banking-channel payment, dematerialisation, exchange-based sale, and receipt of consideration supports transaction genuineness unless cogent material links the taxpayer to manipulation, accommodation entries, or conversion of unaccounted money. Suspicion arising from regulatory action concerning the company or investigation reports does not override that evidentiary record. A binding jurisdictional view on comparable facts prevails over a conflicting non-jurisdictional approach based on preponderance of probabilities; consequential unexplained-income and alleged commission additions are unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797897</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>