9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following grounds of appeal:- ITA No.616/Ind/2019 Ayush Jain Assessment Year 2015-16 1.The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,40,95,302/- 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. 4,22,859/- 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.617/Ind/2019 Pritesh Jain (HUF) Assessment Year 2015-16 1.The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the net sale proceeds as Rs.1,43,22,060 as against actual sale proceeds of Rs.1,48,71,538/-. The balance amount of Rs.50,522/- represented the expenses which have been incurred by the appellant on sale of shares and therefore the same should have been allowed. The said addition being wrong and uncalled for is prayed to be deleted. addition of Rs. 4,22,859/- 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. 4. From perusal of the Ground in all the 4 appeals we find that the major common issue raised by the respective assessee(s) is against the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of Ld. A.O denying the benefit of exemption of Long Term Capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not convinced and observed that the figures available from the Annual Report shows that the market value of the equity share of the company on the stock exchange is unrealistic and not at par with the financials of the company. The price are manipulated and they are not in consonance with the growth in the company and the stock price increased for not understandable reason. Ld. A.O accordingly came to a conclusion that the company namely "M/s Sunrise Asian Limited" is a penny stock company and the said transaction of earning abnormal amount of Long Term Capital Gain is through a colorful device and is not genuine and fabricated. Ld. A.O gave benefit of purchase against the sale consideration and made addition for unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.1,40,95,302/-. Ld. A.O further made addition at Rs.4,22,859/- on account of estimated brokerage expenses @3% assuming that the assessee might have paid it for arranging bogus Long Term Capital Gain for converting unaccounted money. Accordingly income assessed at Rs1,55,16,771/-. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed who after referring to some decisions confirmed the action of Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 9,98,610 Add: Capital Gain exempt u/s 10(38) treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs. 1,40,95,302 Add: Alleged charges on transaction Rs.4,22,859 Rs.1,55,16,771 5. The appellant contested the addition made before the H'ble CIT (A), wherein the additions were sustained and consequently the present appeal was filed before Your Honor's. The transaction 6. During the month of June 2011, the appellant was approached by the directors of M/s. Santoshima Lease Finance and Investment India Limited (hereinafter called as Company), an unlisted limited company and their authorized persons with a proposal to invest money in their company by way of acquiring shares of the company on a private placement basis. After the preliminary discussion held, a written and formal proposal dated 05.07.2011 was received from the company for the proposed investment to be made (copy appearing at page no.62 to page no.66 of the paper book) providing various other documents. 7. On receipt of the formal proposal, deliberation was made in the family and a letter seeking additional details was issued to the company (copy appearing at page no.67 to page no.68 of the paper book) on 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is appearing at page no.55 to page no.56 of the paper book). 14. Subsequently, the appellant liquidated his investment made almost two years back by selling the 30,000 shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited for a net consideration of Rs.1,46,95,302/- and after claiming the deduction of cost of acquisition of Rs.6,00,000/-, reflected long term capital gain of Rs.1,40,95,302/- which was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) in the return filed by the appellant. The sequence of the events is tabulated as under for brevity. Period of Event Event June 2011 Meeting with director Mr. Nilesh P Chauhan regarding investment in Santoshima Lease Finance & Investment (India) Limited. 05 July 2011 Issue of Proposal for private placement of shares of the company at a premium of Rs.10/- per shares alongwith copy of list of directors and copy of financial report for FY 2007-08, FY 2008-09 & FY 2009-10. 20 July 2011 Letter issued to the company for further clarifications and requiring copies of Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association and Balance Sheet for the FY 2010-11. 28 July 2011 Reply received form the company alongwith the documents desired. 19 September 2011 Applied for 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s added without any basis and without any cogent material on record, to the income of the appellant as income from undisclosed sources. 17. The Learned CIT(A) confirmed both the additions mainly on the same basis on which the additions were made by the AO and has not controverted the various facts and submissions made by the appellant during the appeal proceedings. The first appeal order is also based on surmises and conjectures and nothing concrete has been brought on record before the confirming the additions made by the AO. 18. Both the above additions made by the Learned AO and confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) have been challenged by the appellant through ground nos. 1 & 2 before Your Honours. Allegations in the assessment order and their rebuttal 19.1 In the assessment order in Para 3.1 the Ld. AO has made general observation in respect of the searches conducted u/s 132 / surveys u/s 133A / enquires conducted by the department based upon which a report was prepared by the Investigation Wing stating the alleged modus operandi for non genuine Long Term Capital Gain. However, there is not a single specific information about the so called investigations and there is no lin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal level, supply and demand in the market determines stock price. b) Earnings of the company and its prospectus c) Investors' sentiments, attitudes and expectations towards the sector as well as the company. d) When a major brokerage gets behind a stock or upgrades it e) Good companies with battered stocks that get bought out can provide huge boosts to a stock's price. If the deal goes through, stock holders are often compensated at a premium 20.2 The major deciding factor for increase in share price is market sentiment. The fact that the market sentiment is deciding factor is proved beyond doubt through the sudden drop in stock market indices as well as individual script from January 2008 which lasted till 2010 wherein share prices of most of the companies tumbled down and touched a new low without having any effect on the profits of the company. Similarly, due to COVID Pandemic in 2020, the prices of all shares listed on the exchange dropped instantly by 30% to 50% within a span of 10 days without any effect on the financial working which also establish that the profit/ earning per share is not the determining factor for price of the shares rather it is the market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so be worthwhile to point out that the equity shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited were issued to the appellant on 28.06.2013 post approval of scheme of amalgamation and completion of the formalities by the respective companies and therefore, there was no point in tracking the price of the shares. Having received the details of credit of shares at the fag end of June, the appellant started tracking the price of the shares from August 2013 onwards. 22.3 Further, from the perusal of the transactions of the sale of shares it would be seen that the appellant has sold the shares over a period of almost four months i.e. from November 2013 to February 2014. During the intervening period the price of the shares was not fixed and rather there were upward (highest price being Rs.510) as well as downward movement (lowest price being Rs.392) in the price of shares. Due to the tracking and monitoring the price of the scrip, the appellant was able to sell the shares at a favourable rate leading to long term gain from the transactions. 22.4 Thus, the observation of the Ld. AO that there was no tracking of the shares by the appellant since beginning is factually wrong as well as irrelevant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment order, no documents have been provided to the appellant. Non providing of the details, establish that there were no documents / evidences which could establish that the transaction undertaken by the appellant were non genuine or he was instrumental in alleged price manipulation in shares of the M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited. 23.5 In spite of request for providing the statement, neither the statements were provided nor any opportunity to cross examine the concerned persons whose statements were obtained u/s 131 of the Act was provided. Still the relevant information and allegations, if any, made therein, has been used against the appellant. At this stage, it would be apt to point out that mere information is not enough rather it has to be substantiated with facts. The information may and may not be correct. For fastening the liability upon anybody, the Department has to provide the authenticity of the information to the person against whom such information is used. The principle of natural justice, demands that without confronting the appellant of such evidence, if any, or the information, no addition can be made. 23.6 Attention is drawn to the following judicial decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different time simultaneously. There are no documents or evidence which could establish that there was any such connivance on the part of the appellant. 26. Thus, it is submitted that various baseless and too general statements / observations have been made in the assessment order and the strength for making the addition is based on such generalizations without any direct or cogent evidence which could establish any wrong doing on the part of the appellant. 27. Further, on going through the income tax return, balance sheet and the bank statement of the appellant it would be seen that there is no source of income through which such a huge amount of income from undisclosed sources could have been earned by the appellant which was allegedly brought in the accounts in the form of non genuine long term capital gain as alleged. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is against the human probabilities. 28. To sum up, the Ld. AO has proceeded in a manner which is against the principle of natural justice by not providing any opportunity to the appellant of cross examination. Further, various allegations have been raised against the appellant which are without any corroborative facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 shares in the said company duly confirmed by third party evidence like confirmation of brokers and bank details we are of the view that the short point for our determination as enumerated in para 4 (supra) needs to be answered in the favour of the assessee. That is, the said transaction was rightly reflected by the assessee as long term capital gain, The Ld. AO as well as the Ld CIT(A) were not justified in treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act when the assessee has been able to discharge its primary onus effectively and satisfactorily. The Revenue could not establish live link between cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is decided in the favour of the assessee."(Emphasis Supplied) From the perusal of the above decision it would be apparent that the legislature has not intended to treat each and every transaction on the same footing. If the revenue is unable to prove by way of documentary evidence that the assessee has manipulate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 CIT Copies of the above orders are enclosed at page no. 11 to 129 of the case law paper book. It is submitted that all the above decisions of various Coordinate Benches of Honourable ITAT are in respect of the same script i.e. Sunrise Asian Ltd. wherein similar additions were made on almost identical facts. The latest decision of Honourable Jaipur Bench in ITA No. 124/JP/2020 dated 18.11.2020 (copy at page no. 11 to 76 of case law paper book) is an elaborate and detailed decision wherein the Honourable ITAT has also discussed various other decisions of Honourable High Courts and also various Honourable ITAT and on the similar set of facts, following the decision of Honourable Rajasthan High Court and also of the Coordinate Benches held that the Learned CIT(A) was not justified in not allowing the claim of the assessee u/s 10(38) and allowed the appeals filed by the assessee. The appellant places heavy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 client. Therefore there is no reason for charging any amount apart from the amount which has been charged in the contract note itself. 33.7 In view of the above and in continuation to the submissions made in respect of ground no. 1 it is prayed that the addition of Rs. 4,22,859/- made on account of alleged payment to the broker is purely based on presumptions and surmises, without any evidence and hence, the same may kindly be deleted. 12. In the following cases Hon'ble Co-ordinate Benches of Tribunal have dealt the identical issue of Long Term Capital Gain in respect of sale of shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd:- Date Bench Appeal No. Particulars 18.11.20 Jaipur "B" Bench 124/JP/2020 Ashok Agrawal V/s ACIT Jaipur 11.08.20 Mumbai "D" Bench 7648/Mum/2019 Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan V/s DCIT Central Mumbai 08.08.19 Mumbai "B" B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 no. 91 of PB * Narayan Rathi - Mumbai Bench Para no. 06 at page no. 102 of PB The submission and arguments of the appellant on this aspect are covered in para no.23.1 to 23.6 of the synopsis. 5. Independent enquiries made from third party for sale of shares were returned unserved. It has been held that in case of transaction of share through stock exchange the identity of buyers is not known to the assessee. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn for unavailability of response from purchaser. 1. Dipesh Ramesh - Mumbai Bench Para no. 9 & 10 at page no. 93 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce 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 country through various brokers. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of CIT V/s Smt. Sanghamitra Bharali . Ld. DR also relied on the following judgments of :- (i) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Suman Poddar V/s Income Tax Officer (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) (ii) Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of CIT V/s Smt. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 50 taxmann.com 47 (Gauhati) 15. We have heard rival submissions and perused the records placed before us and care ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onvened 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 Santoshima Tradelinks Limited in demat account. July 2013 Received Balance sheet of the Sunrise Asian for the FY 2012-13 Nov 13 onwards Sale of shares through stock Exchange Following documents were furnished: . Copies of 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 broker. 17. From going through the above sequence of events which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate 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 the same. The perusal of record would reveal that the assessee purchased certain shares of an entity namely M/s STL as early as September, 2011. The shares were converted into demat form in assessee's account during the month of March, 2012. The transactions took place through banking channels. The investments were duly reflected by the assessee in financial statements of respective years. The copies of financial statements of M/s STL for FYs 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 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 of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity in as much as it amounts to violation of principal of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. The whole basis of making the addition is third party statement without there being any tangible material. It is trite law that additions merely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson 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 that the buyer of the shares were group entities of Shri Vipul Bhat, could not be sustained. The fact that there were independent buyers also would rebut the same and weaken the conclusion drawn by Ld. AO. 11. The Ld. AR has relied on plethora of judicial pronouncements in support of various submissions, which we have duly considered. These decisions would only support the conclusions drawn by us that once the assessee has disch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Act. In the case in hand, the Id. AO has referred to SESI enquiry against M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. However, we note that the said enquiry was regarding failure to comply with certain disclosure requirements and therefore, the subject matter of the enquiry has no connection with the transaction of bogus long term capital gain and has no bearing in judging the genuineness of the transaction undertaken by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /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 received in the D-mat account of the assessee and they have been sold through the Dmat account only. Hence the delivery of shares a/so stand proved. The AO has not brought any material on record to show that the assessee was part of fraudulent price rigging. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to implicate the assessee or to prove that the transactions are bogus/ 'r am of the view that the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 International Finvest Limited. His conclusion and findings against the Respondent are chiefly on the strength of the astounding 4849.2% jump in share prices of the aforesaid company within a span of two years, which is not supported by the financials. On an analysis of the data obtained from the websites, the AO observes that the quantum leap in the share price is not justified; the trade patt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 put forth by the Appellant, the additions cannot be sustained. 12. Mr. Hossain's submissions relating to the startling spike in the share price and other factors may be enough to show circumstances that might create suspicion; however the Court has to decide an issue on the basis of evidence and proof, and not on suspicion alone. The theory of human behavior and preponderance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either 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) of the Act and revenue authorities are alleging it to be bogus and sham transactions liable to be taxed u/s 68 of the Act. Since we have adjudicated similar issue in the case of Mr. Ayush Jain discussed in the preceding paras and have held in favour of the assessee, thus allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain earn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
