ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAHUL MANISH KAPADIA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4091/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 202610 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reliance on certain judgments was misplaced as they did not cover off-market transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not conducted factual verification regarding the non-confrontation of evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the addition and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made on account of unexplained cash credit and commission related to the sale of shares of a penny stock company. The Assessing Officer treated the Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) as bogus, while the assessee claimed it was genuine and supported by documentation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions related to penny stock transactions without appreciating the nature of off-market transactions and the need for proper verification of evidence. The issue also involves the genuineness of LTCG claimed under Section 10(38).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 10(38),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D BENCH, MUMBAI

आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Assessee 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent. 2. आयकरआयु�/ The CIT 3. �धान आयकर आयु�/ Pr.CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, 5. Mumbai गाड�फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�ािपत�ित //True Copy//

उप/सहायकपंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →