KALAIYARASAN RAJANGAM MUDALIAR,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AHMEDABAD
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a short-term capital loss on the sale of unquoted shares. The Assessing Officer disallowed this loss, citing discrepancies between the assessee's shareholding documents and the company's reported details. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting documents.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the discrepancy in shareholding particulars and the purchase price required fresh verification. It also noted the assessee's explanation of a distress sale and the need to examine the transaction's genuineness.
What were the issues?
Whether the short-term capital loss on the sale of unquoted shares is allowable, considering discrepancies in shareholding details and the valuation of shares.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 272A,Section 50CA,Section 80D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI GANGADHAR PANDA
PER GANGADHAR PANDA - ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “NFAC”], for the Assessment Year 2022-203 arising out of the assessment order dated 27.03.2024 completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. Disallowance of Short term capital loss on sale of unquoted shares of Fiducia Infrastructure Private Limited of Rs. 3,38,00,000/
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 640/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 639/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 638/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rajeshkumar Shah, Navagam, Udhana vs Income Tax Officer, AdajanITA 283/SRT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Ferosh D Marak, Meghalaya vs ITO, W-1, Shillong, MeghalayaITA 265/GTY/2025[2017-2018]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-2018
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. S.G. Fab vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 6 Oct 2026
- Meghnath Kapri vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Meghnath Kapri vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Nithil Agarwal vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Navneet Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief Secretary, Government Of JharkhandJharkhand · 6 Oct 2026