2026 (4) TMI 1040

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has been affirmed. 2. The respondent/assessee, an individual who filed his return of income through electronic mode declaring total income Rs. 5,98,850/- on 26.07.2016 for the assessment year 2016-17, showing his income from the salary, income from other sources and trading of commodities. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessee's case and issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act", for short). He filed his return of income on 22.02.2020. Thereafter, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. 3. The Assessing Officer, based on the available material held that the assessee had invested in shares of M/s. Safal Herbs Ltd., and declared and claimed exempt capital gai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....use 3.1(h) of the CBDT Circular No.05/2024. 5. Shri Siddharth Sharma, Advocate, has proposed the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. Tribunal erred in ignoring the direct and circumstantial evidence brought on records by the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee had indulged in manipulation of the share prices of Safal Herbs Ltd. with a view to record fictitious Long Term Capital Gain? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the order of the Ld. Tribunal suffers from perversity as it ignores the facts brought on record establishing manipulation of shares price of Safal Herbs Ltd. as part of colourable device t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g Officer's specific finding that the initial purchase was an illegal 'off-market' transaction evidenced by a defective debit note and an 'Inter-Depository Transfer', thereby constituting a colourable device? 7. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT erred in holding that the onus u/s 68 was discharged by the assessee merely by proving the banking channel, when the surrounding circumstances and the independent verification by the AO revealed that the transaction was executed in violation of mandatory SEBI regulations and failed the statutory condition of STT payment u/s 10(38)? 8. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT committed a substantial error and perversity in passing the impugned order without considering and adjudi....