AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 964
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. Since these appeals are pertaining to three related assesses and involving common issue as well as arising from identical facts and circumstances therefore, for the sake of convenience these three appeals were clubbed together for the purpose of hearing and are disposed of by this composite order. For the purpose of recording the facts and grounds the appeal in ITA No. 2193/Bang/2016 is taken as lead case wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The learned Assessing Office had erred in passing the order in the manner passed by him and the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the same. The impugned orders being bad in law, void ab-initio are required ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In any case and without further prejudice, the authorities below have erred in: a) Taxing/confirming the entire sale consideration received on sale of shares as income under the head other sources. b) Not considering the fact that the appellant had earned Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares ad same was exempt U/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act.. c) Holding without basis that the transaction in shares are fraudulent d) Alleging without any basis that the appellant has obtained accommodation entries and appellant's own money come back in the guise of capital gains. The conclusions / observations of authorities below being totally erroneous and without basis both on facts and law is to be disrega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g rejection of claim of long term capital gain from sale of shares and treating the same as income from other sources. The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income declaring inter alia the long term capital gain of Rs. 7,40,586/- on sale of shares of M/s. Talent Infoway Limited and claimed exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. There was a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the IT Act in case of M/s. Mahasagar Securities and Mukesh Choksi Group on 25.11.2009, wherein Shri Mukesh Choksi the key person of the said group admitted in the statement recorded by the investigation wing that his group companies including M/s. Mahasagar Securities, M/s. Alliance Intermediatires & Networks Pvt Ltd. etc were engaged in providing accommodatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....914/- which were dematerialized in the month of December 2005 and thereafter the shares were sold on 27.02.2007. Thus the ld. AR has submitted that the sale of shares were not in dispute as the assessee sold the shares from its demat account and the entire transaction of sale was through banking channel. Thus, the profit on sale of shares of M/s. Talent Infoway Limited is long term capital gain which is exempt u/s. 10(38) of the IT Act. He has further contented that the assessee in support of its claim furnished the contract notes of the broker thereby the shares were purchased by the assessee. Further the assessee has duly shown the shares in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2005. Therefore, the assessee has produced all relevant evidence to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 10(38) cannot be denied. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the sale in question is not through stock exchange and therefore no STT was paid on these transactions. Further, the entire transaction is for the accommodation entries provided by Mukesh Choksi Group through its group concerns. The assessee has not proved the genuineness of purchase of shares as it was claimed the purchases against cash. Therefore, the claim of the assessee in the absence of evidence cannot be accepted. The AO has examined the contract note relied upon by the assessee and found that the broker in question was not authorized to trade in the stock exchange and in the shares. Therefore, the contract note produced by the assessee does not prove t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... capital gain etc. It is pertaining to note that though the purchase transaction as claimed by the assessee on 15.04.2004, may not be acceptable however, when the shares are dematerialized and shown in the demat account of the assessee then on the said date of dematerialization of shares the existence of the shares in the name of the assessee cannot be disputed. Therefore even if the assessee has not produced a conclusive evidence to prove the transaction of purchase on 15.04.2004 however the holding of shares by the assessee as on the date of dematerialization cannot be doubted. The assessee has claimed that the shares were dematerialized in the month of December 2005. In support of claim the assessee has referred the dematerialization req....