Bogus share transactions involving abnormal price rise in penny ...

Proven share purchase & demat existence, AO failed to refute evidence, assessee's company knowledge irrelevant if transactions valid.

Case Laws Income Tax

October 22, 2024

Bogus share transactions involving abnormal price rise in penny stock shares - Assessee produced evidence of share purchase, existence in demat account - AO failed to rebut assessee's evidence, merely relied on circumstantial evidence - Ignorance of assessee about company's financials not crucial when transactions substantiated - Denial of exemption u/s 10(38) not justified - Addition u/s 68 deleted by CIT(A), upheld by ITAT - AO should have discharged onus after assessee's evidence.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Bogus share transactions involving abnormal price rise in penny ...

Proven share purchase & demat existence, AO failed to refute evidence, assessee's company knowledge irrelevant if transactions valid.

Case Laws Income Tax

October 22, 2024

You may also like:

The assessee provided documentary evidence supporting the purchase and subsequent sale of shares leading to long-term capital gains (LTCG). The evidence included...

The Assessing Officer (AO) failed to conduct relevant inquiries regarding the shares held as penny stocks by the assessee in GCM Securities Ltd. The Principal...

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 68 as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of LTCG claimed u/s 10(38). The AO found discrepancies in off-market...

Unexplained credits u/s. 68 - Bogus LTCG - Penny stock purchases - Nothing on record to suggest that the shares were never with the assessee. On the contrary, the shares...

Addition u/s 68 - cash credit - assessee being a share broker - All the equity shares so purchased first came in the Demat account of the assessee broker and then has...

Bogus purchases - addition made towards entire bogus purchase - Assessee has literally wasted precious time of the AO by once again issuing notices and summons to the...

The assessee received share application money and premium from a company that admitted to providing accommodation entries. The AO rejected the assessee's claim, citing...

Non-proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share premium received cannot be treated as unexplained income if sufficient documentary evidence is provided....

The assessee, a professional stock broker, claimed loss on trading of shares which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that the trades were not...

Addition u/s 56(2)(viia) - purchase of shares at price more than its fair market value - The tribunal extensively reviewed the submissions and evidence presented,...

Allowability of financial charges including interest expenditure - The assessee failed to produce documentary evidences, the end use of funds invested in subsidiary,...

CIT(A) determined profit at 5.47% on total purchases. Assessee produced sufficient evidence regarding purchases, movement of goods, GST payment on transportation,...

The ITAT Surat held that disallowance of business loss on sale of securities as LTCG in penny stocks was unjustified. The AO failed to provide evidence of collusive...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) examined the addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) for the difference between the market value and consideration received for shares...

The assessee company received share capital and share application money from 13 share applicants. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 68, alleging that the...

Quick Updates: