2024 (5) TMI 1576

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee during the financial year 2013-14 had purchased 40,000 shares of M/s. Ojas Asset Reconstruction Company Limited @ Rs.10/- per share. Subsequently, the said shares were dematerialised and out of 40,000 shares, the Assessee sold 20,800 shares on a total consideration of Rs.1,39,98,220/- and consequently earned the long term capital gain of Rs.1,35,28,220/- and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. Though the Assessee, during the assessment proceedings, has claimed that the purchase and sale transactions have been carried out through banking channel and the Assessee sold the shares through online platform and duly paid the STT. The Assessee also submitted copies of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Assessee was eligible to claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act for long term capital gains", and the fact that the AO has not brought any material evidence on record to prove that the impugned transaction is found to be bogus and in the investigation report, nowhere the name of the Assessee is mentioned indicating that the Assessee has collided with his brokers' companies, his promoters, exit providers to arrange bogus long term capital gain, ultimately allowed the claim of the Assessee and deleted the addition made by the AO. 3.1 The Ld. Commissioner while allowing the claim of the Assessee had, also taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF (2023) 156 t....