TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of an amount of Rs. 31,10,915/- made by AO holding the sale proceeds of the shares, to be not genuine.2 3.(i) That the addition has been confirmed despite the same having been made grossly indulging in conjecture and surmises without there being any direct adverse material against the assessee, based only on suspicion. (ii) That the addition has been confirmed despite the assessee bringing on record all evidences and material to prove the genuineness of the transaction. (iii) That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition despite the transaction having been done through proper banking channels and as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justice. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,55,546/- made by AO on account of commission @ 5% without there being any basis for the same. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 03.11.2014 declaring income at Rs. 6,64,692/-. The case of the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and was taken for scrutiny. Notice u/s. 143(2) dated 18.9.2015 was issued. Thereafter, statutory notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....without any past experience in trading of shares raises a very strong suspicion so as to question the authenticity of the transaction and reject the paper trail created by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order, Assessee is in Appeal before the Tribunal. 4. 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 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the addition to Rs. 31,10,915/- by holding that sale proceeds of the shares, to be not genuine and Rs. 1,55,546/- on account of commission @ 5% which does not need any interference and need to be upheld. 6. 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 relating to addition made on account of LTCG by treating the same as income from other sources. In this case the assessee has shown LTCG from sale of 6000 shares of M/s HPC Biosciences Limited and the same has been claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. The AO rejected all the claims made by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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) deleting the addition of Rs. 4,11,77,474/- made by the AO on account of sham share transactions ignoring an important aspect that the transaction of shares showing their purchase price at Rs. 11,00,000/- and sale consideration at Rs. 4,23,45,295/- within a period of less than two years / purchases of shares made in cash not cheque that too before shares got dematerialized / worth of the company at the time of purchase / sale of shares not proved- All suggest non-genuineness of the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 in short is this : The assessee purchased shares of a company during the assessment year 2006-07 at Rs. 11/- and sold the same in the assessment year 2008- 09 at Rs. 400/- per share. In the above case, namely, ITA 18-2017 also the assessee had purchased and sold the shares in the same assessment years. The AO in both the cases added the appreciation to the assessees' income on the suspicion that these were fictitious transactions and that the apprecia....