Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Pankaj Agarwal & Sons (HUF) & Ors. v. ITO 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1373 (Chen-Trib)
REFERRED Kiran Kothari (HUF) v. ITO 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1312 (Kol-Trib)
REFERRED Sanjay Mehta v. ACIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6512 (Kol-Trib)
REFERRED Navneet Agarwal v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5309 (Kol-Trib)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. BLB Cables & Conductors (P) Ltd. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5233 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3719 (SC)
REFERRED Vivek Agarwal v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2230 (Jp-Trib)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Prem Pal Gandhi 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0451 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED Gautam Kumar Pincha v. ITO 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5478 (Kol-Trib)
REFERRED Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain v. Pr. CIT, Nagpur & Anr. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5257 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED ITO v. Arvind Kumar Jain HUF 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5150 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Manish Kumar Baid & Anr. v. ACIT 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4463 (Kol-Trib)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Rungta Properties (P) Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1649 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3526 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Emerald Commercial Ltd. & Anr. 2001 TaxPub(DT) 1277 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Carbo Industrial Holdings Ltd. 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1295 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Sumati Dayal v. CIT 1995 TaxPub(DT) 1173 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0421 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0323 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Durga Prasad More 1971 TaxPub(DT) 0375 (SC)
REFERRED Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT 1959 TaxPub(DT) 0184 (SC)
REFERRED Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT 1959 TaxPub(DT) 0181 (SC)
REFERRED Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT 1959 TaxPub(DT) 0148 (SC)
 
The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 8324 (Gau-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 68

Assessee had filed all necessary evidences in support of concerned transactions, evidence of purchase of shares, and payment for purchase of shares made by way of account payee cheque, copy of bank statements and demat statements, copy of balance sheet disclosing investments, evidence of sale of shares through stock exchange, brokers ledger and Contract Notes, etc. The evidences filed by assessee remained uncontroverted and, therefore, AO was not justified in making addition under section 68 of long-term capital gain on sale of shares.

Income from undisclosed sources - Addition under section 68 - Long-term capital gain on sale of shares - Assessee filed all the supportive evidences

Assessee claimed long-term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares as exempt under section 10(38). AO took the view that assessee had acted in collusion with various entry operators and accordingly, AO treated LTCG on transfer of shares to be bogus unexplained cash credits under section 68.Held: Assessee had filed all necessary evidences in support of concerned transactions. evidence of purchase of shares, and payment for purchase of shares made by way of account payee cheque, copy of bank statements and demat statements, copy of balance sheet disclosing investments, evidence of sale of shares through stock exchange, brokers ledger and Contract Notes, etc. The evidences filed by assessee remained uncontroverted and, therefore, AO was not justified in making addition under section 68.

Relied:CIT v. Vegetable Products (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) : 1973 TaxPub(DT) 421 (SC). Distinguished:Pankaj Agarwal & Sons (HUF) v. ITO [ITA No. 1413 to 1420/CHNY/2018; Order dt. 6-12-2018] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1373 (Chen-Trib), Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 196 (Bom) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5257 (Bom-HC) and M.K. Rajeshwari v. ITO [ITA No.1723/Bng/2018; A.Y. 2015-16, Order, dt. 12-10-2018].

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2014-15



IN THE ITAT, GUWAHATI BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT