<?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 (10) TMI 166 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800223</link>
    <description>Long-term capital gains from share sales cannot be classified as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 merely on general penny-stock manipulation allegations. Contract notes, demat records and bank details established the purchase, holding and sale; BSE-platform execution through a SEBI-registered broker and payment of securities transaction tax further supported genuineness. In the absence of adverse findings on that evidence or an independent investigation linking the taxpayer or broker to price rigging, Investigation Wing information and general allegations did not rebut the primary evidentiary record. The Section 68 addition was therefore deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2026 09:32:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=927679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 166 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800223</link>
      <description>Long-term capital gains from share sales cannot be classified as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 merely on general penny-stock manipulation allegations. Contract notes, demat records and bank details established the purchase, holding and sale; BSE-platform execution through a SEBI-registered broker and payment of securities transaction tax further supported genuineness. In the absence of adverse findings on that evidence or an independent investigation linking the taxpayer or broker to price rigging, Investigation Wing information and general allegations did not rebut the primary evidentiary record. The Section 68 addition was therefore deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800223</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>