2023 (4) TMI 391

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar 2014-15. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT had erred and failed to appreciate that the assessee could not substantiate the genuineness of the transaction to prove that it had not indulged in dubious share transactions meant to account for undisclosed income in the garb of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) to claim exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT had erred while allowing the assessee's appeal of claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without holding that transaction of sale and purchase of shares of pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng Rs.5,27,838/-) on the income assessed by the revenue vide assessment order dated 20.12.2016 without including any interest or penalty along with interest received by the petitioner under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act of Rs.89,170/-. The assessment which is the subject matter of consideration in this appeal is of the year 2014-2015. Similar issue arose for the assessment year 2012-2013 and the assessment was completed by rejecting the case of the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata which was allowed. The revenue did not challenge the said order before the learned Tribunal. However, the assessee thought it fit to avail the benefit of Vivad Se Vishw....