MILLY SEWAK, RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. ITO-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to bring any direct nexus of the assessee in share rigging activities or conscious involvement in obtaining bogus long-term capital gains. The assessee was considered an unsuspecting investor.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed exemption on sale of shares under Section 10(38). The Assessing Officer reopened the case and made additions by disallowing the purchase cost and transfer expenses, treating the shares as penny stocks. The assessee argued that transactions were through banking channels and the stock exchange, and there was no evidence of involvement in any nexus with entry providers.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of treating shares as penny stock and disallowing purchase cost and expenses is justified without direct evidence of assessee's involvement in any malafide scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(38),Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 68,Section 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 27.04.2026 for the assessment year 2015-16 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
Brief facts in this case are that the assessee being individual derives income from salary, short term capital gain and interest. The assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.5,92,210/- claiming exemption u/s.10(38)
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 10(38)
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Karan Dilipkumar Patel L/H of Late… vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi…ITA 353/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jay Patel, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-3(1), RaipurITA 684/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026