TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1961. 2. The appellant contends that all documentary evidence in support of sale and purchase of shares has been submitted. The entire transaction is through Banking channel. The rejection by the AO as well as CIT(A) as bogus long term capital gain is without any basis on conjectures and surmises. The claim of long term capital gain should be allowed. 3. The CIT(A) as well as AO has placed reliance on statement recorded by Investigation Wing, Kolkatta which has no nexus to the appellant's case. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of the AO upholding the addition to Rs. 33,63,365/- u/s 68 as unexplained credit instead of long term capital gain as claimed by the appellant. The source identity an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeal of the Assessee by enhancing the addition in dispute to Rs. 34,78,051/-. 4. Aggrieved with the impugned order, Assessee is in Appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that revenue authorities erred in law and on facts in not allowing the claim of the assessee in respect of Long Term Capital Gains on sale of listed equity shares through recognized Stock Exchange after payment of STT u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the assessee has submitted all documentary evidences in support of sale and purchase of shares. It was further stated that the entire transaction is through Banking channel and the rejection by the AO as well as CIT(A) as bogus long term capital gain i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expenditure claimed to have been incurred in the earlier years is not genuine and cannot be claimed and allowed as expenditure during the current year. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly enhanced the addition to Rs. 34,78,051/- which does not need any interference and needs to be upheld. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with me, especially the orders of the revenue authorities and the case law cited by the assessee's counsel on the issue in dispute. I find that the assessment in this case was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 19.12.2016 determining an income of Rs. 36,25,365/-. The AO has alleged that the assessee has claimed bogus long term capital gain of Rs. 33,63,365/- and has adde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e as explained above, the assessee has justified the LTCG as a genuine and bonafide transaction the cost of Rs. 1,14,686/- shall also be allowed as a deduction from the sale consideration. Hence, the enhanced addition in dispute amounting to Rs. 34,78,051/- is hereby deleted. My aforesaid view is fortified by the following decision:- Decision dated 18.1.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of PCIT (Central), Ludhiana vs. Prem Pal Gandhi passed in ITA No. 95 of 2017 wherein it has been held as under:- "2. The following questions of law have been raised:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in upholding the order of the CIT(A) dele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 12,59,000/- made by the AO on the basis of seized document on the grounds that the AO has not pointed out as to how the figures of Rs. 12.59 lacs has been worked out ignoring the fact that the assessee himself in his reply to the AO had tried to explain the source of the receipts of Rs. 12,59,000/- instead of challenging the working out of the said figure by the AO? 3. The first three questions of law raised in this appeal are covered against the appellant by an order and judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 16.02.2017 in ITA-18-2017 titled as The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana vs. Sh. Hitesh Gandhi, Bhatti Colony, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahar. 4. The issue ....