TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(AY) 2014-15. 2. At the outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 442 days in filing the appeal before us. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that, while filing Form No. 36, the assessee had inadvertently and erroneously mentioned the date of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as 02.04.2024 instead of the correct date, i.e., 25.11.2025. Therefore, the delay reflected in the system is purely on account of an inadvertent clerical error while filing Form No. 36 and is not due to any lapse or negligence in filing the appeal within time. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that Grounds No. 1 and 2, challenging the validity of reopening under section 147 and violation of the principles of natural....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) through a registered stockbroker, as under: * 4,000 shares in September 2013; * 3,000 shares in November 2013; and * 3,000 shares in March 2014, at prevailing market rates ranging between Rs. 489/- and Rs. 507/- per share. 8. All the sale transactions were routed through the online trading mechanism of the BSE, and the statutory Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was duly paid. The entire sale proceeds were credited directly to the assessee's bank account with HDFC Bank through banking channels. The assessee claimed the resulting long-term capital gains as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. 9. The Assessing Officer, drawing inferences from general reports of the Investig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry same scrip for the same Assessment Year, i.e., A.Y. 2014-15, the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, Bench "F", had allowed the appeal in the case of the assessee's mother. It was submitted that the issue also stands covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar [2024] 169 taxmann.com 473 (Guj.), subsequently followed in PCIT v. Sanjaykumar Damjibhai Gangani [2025] 178 taxmann.com 276 (Guj.), and by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in CCIT (OSD) v. Nilesh Jain (HUF) [2024] 163 taxmann.com 229 (MP). 13. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. He contended that the exponential appreciation in the share price within a short duration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....modation-entry network. 17. We further notice that the identical issue concerning the scrip of M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. for the very same Assessment Year, i.e., A.Y. 2014-15, has been considered by the higher judicial authorities. 18. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT-1 v. Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar [2024] 169 taxmann.com 473 (Guj.), affirming the order of the ITAT, Surat, observed: "16. Considering the contentions raised on behalf of the Revenue, the Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact that shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. sold by the assessee cannot be doubted as bogus and exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act was rightly availed by the assessee. The Tribunal has also concluded that the presumption drawn by the....