9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the lower tax authorities are not able to sustain the addition without any cogent material on record. Dinesh Ramesh Vardhan [ 2020 (8) TMI 405 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Ashok Agrawal [ 2020 (11) TMI 650 - ITAT JAIPUR] the alleged transaction of earning Long Term Capital Gain from sale of equity shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Limited is neither bogus nor sham and thus eligible for exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and no addition was thus called for u/s 68 of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee. - HON BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON BLE MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : S/Shri Ajay Tulasiyan Ranjan Agrawal, ARs For the Respondent : Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.DR ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, A.M The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of the assessee(s) for Assessment Years 2014-15 2015-16 are directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II (in short Ld. CIT], Indore dated 28.02.2019 and 31.08.2020 which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act Ayush Jain Ors 1961(In short the Act ) dated 14.12.2016, 06.12.2016, 17.12.2018 and 21.12.2018 framed by ITO-4(2), Indore. 2. As accepted by both the parties the issues ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition of Rs. 1,02,86,220/- made by the AO by disallowing the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) in respect of the long term capital gains of the appellant. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the claim of the appellant being proper and legal is prayed to be now allowed. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,21,790/- made by the AO u/s 68 on account of alleged commission on surmises and conjectures. The said addition being wrong and uncalled for is prayed to be deleted. 3.The order passed by the AO without following the principle of natural justice is bad in law and is prayed to be quashed. 4.That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before final hearing, if necessity so arises. ITA No.294/Ind/2020 Nilesh Jain (HUF) Assessment Year 2014-15 1.The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,43,22,060/- made by the AO by disallowing the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) in respect of the long term capital gains of the appellant. That on the facts and in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommon we are adjudicating the same on the basis of facts of the case of Mr. Ayush Jain in ITA No.616/Ind/2019 to which no objection was raised by any of the parties. 6. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual having source of income from salary, Capital Gain and other sources. Return of income was e-filed on 12.8.2015 declaring total income of Rs.9,98,606/- and also claiming exemption for Long Term Capital Gain u/s 10(38) of the Act arising from sale of equity shares of Sunrise Asian Limited at Rs.1,40,95,302/-. Case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and notice u/s 142(1) was duly served upon the assessee. Detailed questionnaire was also issued. Details submissions were filed by the assessee. Ld. A.O asked information about the transaction of sale of 30,000 equity shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Limited which were purchased on 10.10.2011 at a cost of Rs.6,00,000/- and sold during the financial year 2013-14 at Rs.1,46,95,302/-. The assessee filed complete details of the purchase and sale of shares effected through a recognized stock exchange and shares transferred through Dmat account thereby fulfilling the condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Capital Gain from penny stock company and estimated brokerage expenses. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the above decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Bench in the case of Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan V/s DCIT (supra) was subsequently followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of Jaipur in the case of Ashok Agrawal V/s ACIT ITA No.124/JP/2020 order dated 18.11.2020. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied heavily on the recent judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT V/s Krishna Devi Others in ITA No.125/2020 dated 15.01.2021. 11. The written submissions in the form of synopsis by the assessee is reproduced below: 1. The appellant is an individual which has income from salary, capital gains and other sources. 2. The return of income was filed on 12.08.2015 declaring a total income of Rs.9,98,606/- and claiming an amount of Rs.1,40,95,302/- on account of long term capital gain as exempt u/s 10(38). 3. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on the same income. The return was selected for scrutiny. Notices u/s 142(1) were issued from time to time which were duly complied with. 1. 4. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 23.12.16 by making the following additions :- Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... processed on 29.10.2012 (copy appearing at page no.48 to page no.53 of the paper book) 10. Subsequently the appellant received a notice of meeting of shareholders of M/s. Santoshima Tradelinks Limited (new name of M/s. Santoshima Lease Finance and Investment India Limited) in the month of October 2012 issued on the direction of H ble Bombay High Court for proposal for scheme of amlagamtion of the company with M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited. (copy appearing at page no.4 to page number 19 of the paper book) 11. The appellant also inquired about the rationale behind amalgamation with the company (copy appearing at page no.71 of the paper book) and received explanations and justification for the same (copy appearing at page no.72 of the paper book). 12. The scheme of amalgamation was finally approved by the H ble Bombay High Court in the month of March 2013 (copy appearing at page no.20 to page no.47 of the paper book) 13. Pursuant to the amalgamation, in lieu of the shares held by the appellant in M/s. Santoshima Tradelinks Limited, new 30,000 equity shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited were allotted to the appellant on 26.06.13 (copy of demat account reflecting the shares transaction is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contract notes in respect of sale of shares Copy of ledger account of the broker Copy of the bank account statement for the year reflecting the transactions with the broker. 2. Assessment and first appeal Proceedings 15. During the course of the assessment proceedings, inquires and information was called in respect of the share transaction. The appellant explained all the above facts and events to the Learned AO during the assessment proceedings. However, without pointing out any short coming or any defect in the transaction or without bringing on record any specific charge, merely on the basis of general remarks and allegations, drawing adverse inferences from the general modus operandi, merely on surmises and conjectures, the amount of capital gain earned by the appellant was treated as unexplained cash credits and the amount was taxed in the hands of the appellant. 16. Further, the learned AO also assumed that certain charges would have been incurred for arranging the alleged non genuine capital gain and therefore an amount equal to 3% of the capital gain earned of Rs.1,40,95,032/- amounting to Rs.4,22,859/- was added without any basis and without any cogent material on record, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deed a penny stock as alleged by the AO, some sort of inquiry or proceedings must have been initiated by various governing bodies like SEBI, Stock Exchange etc against the alleged manipulation and price rigging in the shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited. It would be worthwhile to state that to the best of the knowledge and belief of the appellant, no such action has been taken against the company or any of its director by any authority which itself establishes that the company is an operational company and not a penny stock company as alleged by the AO. Such an allegation is absolutely without any basis and without bringing any cogent material on record. 20.1 Further with respect to the observations of the AO regarding high growth in the share price of the company, which is one of the major reason of doubting the transactions it would be sufficient to say that the price at which the script is traded in the exchange is affected by the profit but the same is not the only deciding factor. The various factors which determine the price of the shares can be summarized as under: a) At the most fundamental level, supply and demand in the market determines stock price. b) Earnings of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n investment made earlier and hoping to repeat the success in future, investment in shares have been made by the appellant in the year under consideration and therefore there does not occurs any reason for treating the transaction as non genuine. 22.1 In para no.3.6 of the order, the Ld. AO doubted the transaction of the appellant by holding that the price of the shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited was not tracked since starting. The observation made by the Ld. AO is not only grossly wrong but also casts negative shadow on the actual and genuine transaction. As has been stated in the facts of the case (supra), the appellant has acquired the shares of M/s. Santoshima Tradelinks Limited after discussion with the management and considering the future prospects of the business of the said company. At that point of time the issue of merger of the company with M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. was not under consideration and therefore he was unaware of the existence of M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited let alone its price. Therefore, this observation of the Learned AO is misconceived. 22.2 It would also be worthwhile to point out that the equity shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited were issued to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the shares for the first time and despite of investing a substantial money in one go, no monitoring of the investment was made. 23.3 At the cost of repetition, attention is drawn to the fact that the decision of investment was a very conscious one and has been done after due deliberation and vetting. Further, even after the shares were purchased, attention was given to the transactions and announcements made by the company which would have affected the status of investment. A tabular chart of the events in the total transaction has already been given above, from the perusal of which it would be seen that there was continuous and proactive monitoring of the transactions which cannot by any stretch of imagination can be considered as meagre. 23.4 The fact that the assessment was made with a pre-conceived notion of treating the transaction as non genuine by relying on the statements obtained from some persons is also evident from the fact that despite of the request made by the appellant for certified copies of the statements and documents relied upon while framing the assessment order, no documents have been provided to the appellant. Non providing of the details, establish that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details of counterparty are only available with the exchange and both the parties are unaware of the other party. It is submitted that in the case of screen base online trading, even today, the buyer and the seller are not aware of each other. It is for this reason the appellant during the course of the statement has stated that he is unaware of the person who have acquired the shares sold by him. On these facts and circumstances the AO was not at all justified in drawing adverse inference on the basis of this statement of the appellant. 25.1 It is submitted that from the examination of the contract notes, it would be seen that there was considerable time gap between the time at which the sell order was placed and the time at which the same was executed. If by any stretch of imagination, the transaction would have been a managed affairs, as alleged, there would have been no time gap in the order time and execution time as it would have been impossible on the part of the appellant to be in hand in glow with multiple persons and that too at different time simultaneously. There are no documents or evidence which could establish that there was any such connivance on the part of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found as a party involved in manipulation of price of another script, at Para No.16 Para No.17 of the order, the Honourable ITAT held as under: 16. From the above it is apparent that both the orders are not based on concrete evidence and no single iota of evidence has been discussed to prove that the assessee was involved in creating artificial price rise in the shares of the concerned company. The final fait of the order of the SEBI discussed above are not known to either of the sides. The above order do not help the revenue so as to prove live link between cash deposited by the assessee and received back in form of long term capital gain. Further, the appellant did not dealt with the broker Sri B.D. Daga in whose case enquiry was conducted about shares of Konark Commerce Industries Ltd. . Further, in case, of any violation of the provision of SEBI (intermediaries) Regulation (2008) or SEBI Act, 1922 have been committed, the same is fault of the SEBI broker. The manipulation if any conducted by the broker, the appellant is not liable to be penalized. 17. Further in view of the overwhelming evidences filed by the assessee in support of its transaction of purchase and sale of share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d which established that there was any alleged transfer of money from the assessee to any third party for alleged accommodation entry. The facts in the instant case before Your Honour are more or less identical to the facts of Pr. CIT vs Krishna Devi (supra) before the Honourable Delhi High Court as the observations which have been given by the H ble High Court and lack of details/ information/ corroborative evidence are integral in the order appealed against. 32. Further, various coordinate benches of H ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in their orders in respect of the long term capital gains earned on shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited treated as unexplained cash credit have deleted the additions made in the hands of the assessees . The appellant places heavy reliance on following judicial pronouncements in this regards: Date Bench Appeal No. Name of Party 18.11.20 Jaipur B Bench 124/JP/2020 Ashok Agrawal 11.08.20 Mumbai D Bench 7648/Mum/2019 Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan Vs DCIT Central 08.08.19 Mumbai B Bench 4811/MUM/2018 Narayan RamchandraRathi vs ITO 16.07.19 Mumbai SMC Bench 4514/Mum/2018 Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO 28.11.18 Mumbai A Bench 2560/Mum/2018 Arun S Tripathi Vs CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details have been given as to what is the basis on which such figure has been arrived at. In absence of any evidence, addition made in the hands of the appellant purely on the basis of unconfirmed or unestablished details is improper. 33.5 Further, during the assessment proceedings, no query was raised to the appellant on this issue. In absence of any query or show cause, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the appellant. 33.6 Without prejudice to the above, attention is drawn to the copies of contract notes for purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited. From the examination of the documents it would be seen that the appellant has sold the shares during the year under construction through M/s. Arihant Capital Markets Limited The broker has charged various expenses like Brokerage, Service Tax, Securities Transaction Tax and other charges levied by the exchange in the bill itself. The said broker is a listed company and has its presence pan India through various own office, joint ventures and branches. In this respect, it would be sufficient to say that no reputed company with pan India presence will get indulged in any malpractice for benefit of an individual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench Para no. 08 at page no. 114 of PB The submission and arguments of the appellant on this aspect are covered in para no.20.1 to 20.2 of the synopsis. 3. No prior transactions by the appellant in shares and securities. The appellant is a regular investor in shares and the same are reflected in the balance sheets of various years. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a sole transaction. 1. Ashok Agrawal Jaipur Bench Para No. 15 at page no. 34 of PB The submission and arguments of the appellant a on this aspect are covered in para no.21.1 to 21.2 of the synopsis. 4. Reliance by the AO on various statement obtained u/s 131 of the Act by the Investigation Wing. It has been held that the AO has not brought any material on record to show that the assessee was part of fraudulent price rigging. There was no evidence which could establish the nexus between the assessee and the persons whose statements were recorded. Further no opportunity to cross examine was provided which is against the principal of natural justice and the flaw could not be cured. Ashok Agrawal Jaipur Bench Para no. 13 at page no. 29 of PB Para no. 14 at page no. 31. Dipesh Ramesh Mumbai Bench Para no. 07 at page n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nrise Asian Ltd. cannot be stated to be a penny stock for the reason that the turnover of the company was in excess of Rs. 70 corers and Rs. 113 crores and the profit was in excess of Rs. 40 Lacs and Rs. 103 Lacs for the FY 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively as evident from the financial discussed by the AO in the assessment order itself. Therefore, the nomenclature given by the Investigation Wing is baseless and devoid of any substance. D. No action has been taken by the SEBI against the investee company for alleged manipulation in the price of shares of the company. E. Neither the appellant nor the broker through whom the appellant has transacted in share have been specifically pointed out in the report of Investigation Wing. 14. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the detailed finding of both the lower authorities and again asserted the fact that the abnormal increase in price of shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Limited were not commensurate with the financial strength of the company. Further Investigation Wing has gathered sufficient material before concluding that the alleged transaction is a sham transaction and has been carried out across the cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sociation and Balance Sheet for the Financial Year 2010-11. 28 July 2011 Reply received from the company alongwith the documents desired. 19 September 2011 Applied for 30000 equity shares of the company by paying an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- October 2011 Received shares certificate in respect of shares allotted. July 2012 Received Balance Sheet of the Santoshima Tradelinks Limited (name of company changed w.e.f. 16.09.11) for the FINANCIAL YEAR 2011- 12 October, 2012 Received Notice for court convened meeting of Equity Shares Holders for amalgamation of company and another company Conart Traders Limited with Sunrise Asian Limited. 19 October 2012 Placed request for getting the shares in dematerialized form. 22 October 2012 Letter issued to Mr Nilesh P Chouhan, Director of the company seeking information in respect of amalgamation and raising concerns about the proposal. November 2012 Received letter from the company explaining the rationale for merger and satisfying the queries raised. March 2013 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court passed the order for merger of the company with M/s Sunrise Asian Limited June 2013 New shares in Sunrise Asian Limited received in lieu of holding of Santo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbai has thoroughly examined the similar set of facts and the same issue as raised before us including the claim of exempt income of Long Term Capital Gain from sale of equity shares of SAL u/s 10(38) of the Act and the revenue contending it to be a sham and bogus transaction liable to be taxed u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit and estimated brokerage expense for arranging LTCG. After thoroughly discussing the facts and issues, Co-ordinate Bench, Mumbai has decided in favour of the assessee and held that the claim of Long Term Capital Gain u/s 10(38) of the Act from the sale of equity shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Limited is genuine and SAL is not a penny stock company and further holding that the alleged transaction is neither bogus nor sham. Further the Tribunal has deleted the addition for estimated brokerage expenses for arranging accommodation entry. Relevant finding of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan Vs DCIT recently delivered on 11.08.2020 is reproduced below:- 6. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. So far as the factual matrix is concerned, there is no substantial dispute regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee, which has not been disputed by the revenue. On the basis of all these facts, it could be gathered that the assessee had duly discharged the onus casted upon him to prove the genuineness of the stated transactions and the onus had shifted on revenue to rebut the same. 7. As against the assessee s position, the primary material to make additions in the hands of assessee is the statement of Shri Vipul Bhat and the outcome of search proceedings on his associated entities including M/s SAL. However, there is nothing on record to establish vital link between the assessee group and Shri Vipul Bhat or any of his group entities. The assessee, all along, denied having known Shri Vipul Bhat or any of his group entities. However, nothing has been brought on record to controvert the same and establish the link between Shri Vipul Bhat and the assessee. The opportunity to cross-examine Shri Vipul Bhat was never provided to the assessee which is contrary to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in M/s Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (CA No.4228 of 2006) wherein it was held that not allowing the assessee to crossexamine the witnesses by the adjudicating authority though the statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of any cash exchange between the assessee and group entities of Shri Vipul Bhat. This is further evidenced by the fact that no substantial incriminating material / wealth of that magnitude has been found during the course of search operations on assessee which would corroborate such presumption and prove that the transactions were sham transactions, in any manner. 9. The fact that the assessee could not produce the concerned person of M/s SAL was rightly controverted by submitting that the aforesaid entity was not under the control of the assessee and the assessee was under no obligation to do so. The existence of M/s SAL is beyond doubt since it was a listed corporate entity and secondly, it was subject matter of scheme of amalgamation u/s 391 to 394. The scheme of amalgamation was duly been approved by Hon ble Bombay High Court. Therefore, the existence of the said entity could not be doubted, in any manner. 10. The above conclusion is further fortified by the fact that in share sale transactions through online mode, the identity of the buyer of the shares would not be known to the assessee. Therefore, the adverse conclusion drawn by Ld. AO merely on the basis of the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned additions in the hands of the assessee. Resultantly, the addition on account of alleged Long-Term Capital Gains as well as estimated commission against the same, stands deleted. The grounds of appeal, to that extent, stand allowed. 19. Subsequently Co-ordinate Bench of Jaipur in the case of Ashok Agrawal V/s ACIT in ITA No.124/JP/2020 dated 18.11.2020 has followed the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan (supra) while dealing with the same issue of Long Term Capital Gain from sale of equity shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Limited claimed to be exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue observing as follows:- 23. In the aforesaid decision, it has been held that it is SESI who monitors and regulates the stock exchanges stock market and when their investigation did not reveal any price or volume manipulation by the assessee and these transactions are in the normal course through proper legal channels. Then the allegations of the IT Department fall flat and denial of deduction u/s 10(38) of the Act is arbitrary and addition of sale proceeds of shares of PAL u/s 68 is against the provisions of Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f shares on the stock exchange have not been refuted by any adverse findings or material which could demonstrate involvement of the assessee or collusion with so called accommodation entry providers to obtain bogus LTCG as so alleged by the authorities below. 24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s 10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act and the relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench contained at Para 8 read as under:- 8. The assessee has earned speculation profit in the immediately preceding year through M/s Eden Financial Services also and the said profit has been used to purchase the shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. The assessee has offered the speculation profit for income tax purposes in the immediately preceding year and It has been accepted. Further the assessee has shown the purchase of impugned shares as investment in the Balance Sheet. Hence the purchase of shares has been accepted. Further the shares have been recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) delivered on 22.11.2019, we find that Hon ble High Court of Delhi in its recent judgment dated 15.1.2021 in the case of PCIT V/s Krishna Devi Others ITA No.125/2020 dealing with the similar issue of claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has confirmed the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came to the conclusion that the lower tax authorities are not able to sustain the addition without any cogent material on record. Relevant extract of the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT V/s Krishna Devi Others is reproduced below:- 10. We have heard Mr. Hossain at length and given our thoughtful consideration to his contentions, but are not convinced with the same for the reasons stated hereinafter. 11. On a perusal of the record, it is easily discernible that in the instant case, the AO had proceeded predominantly on the basis of the analysis of the financials of M/s Gold Line Internationa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fere with the findings of the lower tax authorities. The learned ITAT after considering the entire conspectus of case and the evidence brought on record, held that the Respondent had successfully discharged the initial onus cast upon it under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels. The above noted factors, including the deficient enquiry conducted by the AO and the lack of any independent source or evidence to show that there was an agreement between the Respondent and any other party, prevailed upon the ITAT to take a different view. Before us, Mr. Hossain has not been able to point out any evidence whatsoever to allege that money changed hands between the Respondent and the broker or any other person, or further that some person provided the entry to convert unaccounted money for getting benefit of LTCG, as alleged. In the absence of any such material that could support the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of Mumbai and Jaipur in the case of Dinesh Ramesh Vardhan V/s DCIT and Ashok Agrawal V/s ACIT respectively and further find support from the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT V/s Krishna Devi Others and thus hold that the alleged transaction of earning Long Term Capital Gain from sale of equity shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Limited is neither bogus nor sham and thus eligible for exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and no addition was thus called for u/s 68 of the Act. We accordingly allow Ground No.1 raised by the assessee namely Shri Ayush Jain and delete the addition of Rs.1,40,95,302/- and also allow Ground No.2 thus deleting addition for estimated brokerage expenses of Rs.4,22,859/-. The other two grounds are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 22. In the result appeal of the assessee, Shri Ayush Jain in ITA No.616/Ind/2019 is allowed. 23. Now we take up remaining appeals of Shri Pritesh Jain (HUF) ITA No.617/Ind/2019 293/Ind/2020 Shri Nilesh Jain ITA No.294/Ind/2020. The common issue relating to Long Term Capital Gain from sale of equity shares of Sunrise Asian Limited (SAL) is in dispute where the assessee has claimed to exemption u/s 10(38) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
