Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Income Tax - Highlights / Catch Notes

Home Highlights November 2024 Year 2024 This

In this case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) examined ...


Tribunal rejects AO's sham LTCG claim on share deals, unexplained credits additions without evidence.

Case Laws     Income Tax

November 18, 2024

In this case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) examined the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding long-term capital gains (LTCG) from share transactions treated as sham, additions u/ss 68 or 69A for unexplained credits, and addition u/s 69C for alleged unaccounted commission paid. The key points are: The claim for exemption on LTCG cannot be denied merely on suspicion or surmises regarding penny stocks, disregarding direct evidence like contract notes, banking channels, STT payment, and demat account. The AO must provide cogent corroborative material to establish unaccounted income routed back. Mere share value appreciation cannot justify treating transactions as fictitious. The shares were acquired through preferential allotment directly from the company, not brokers. Payment was through banking channels, delivery taken in demat account, held for over a year, contract notes issued, and sold on recognized stock exchange. SEBI did not declare the investee company bogus. Additions u/s 68 apply to credits in books of account, not bank statements. Section 69A addition was made solely on the presumption of redeploying undisclosed income as capital gains without independent tangible evidence of undisclosed income or bogus transactions. The 6.5% addition.

View Source

 


 

You may also like:

  1. Addition made u/s 68 - Bogus LTCG - unexplained cash credits - suspicious transactions in shares - penny stock - The Tribunal ultimately upheld the AO's decision to...

  2. Unsecured loans - Additions u/s 69 as unexplained expenditure - the tribunal finds that the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the impugned additions as the AO failed to...

  3. 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...

  4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) adjudicated on various additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unexplained/bogus credits or trading liabilities. The...

  5. The ITAT Surat (Appellate Tribunal) considered an appeal regarding the addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus LTCG and unexplained cash credit. The appellant's claim for...

  6. The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus LTCG from sale of shares. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were conducted on a...

  7. Bogus share transactions were alleged, and the Assessing Officer (AO) denied the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 10(38) by treating the sale consideration of shares...

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

  9. Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - bogus share capital/share premium - The tribunal noted that the appellant's company had witnessed significant growth over the years,...

  10. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment u/s 147 due to the assessee providing bogus accommodation loss entries. The AO had reasons to believe in the...

  11. Unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68. Interest paid on such unexplained loans also added to income. Assessee's contention of repayment of loans...

  12. Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - share capital/share premium receipts - Despite substantial evidence provided by the appellant, including bank statements, share...

  13. Bogus LTCG - exemption u/s 10(38) denied - The AO contended that the LTCG was undisclosed income arising from alleged manipulation in penny stocks. However, the assessee...

  14. Unexplained credit u/s 68 - peak credit theory - CIT(A) has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee of adopting peak theory for considering unexplained credit - AT

  15. Genuineness of the Transaction – LTCG on sale of shares – shares of listing company were purchased in cash - The AO had not committed any error in rejecting the claim of...

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates