SUBHASHCHANDRA PATEL,DAMAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCMOE TAX DEPARTMENT, VAPI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all necessary details regarding the purchase and sale of shares, including bank statements and demat records. The AO failed to establish a direct link between the assessee's actions and any price manipulation, thus the addition was not justifiable.
What were the facts?
The assessee booked Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 28,37,851/- from the sale of Fiberweb India Ltd. shares, which the AO treated as unexplained credit. The assessee claimed the shares were purchased in 2008 and sold after holding them for approximately 10 years, providing purchase and sale details.
What were the issues?
The primary issues were the validity of the reopening of assessment and whether the LTCG from the sale of shares constituted unexplained cash credit taxable under Section 115BBE.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M:
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 07.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the AO’s action of reopening notice u/s 148 of the Act and the consequent assessment order passed us 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act which is invalid, without juri iction, bad in law and void ab ini
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 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026