VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 2607/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 March 2026AY 2015-1643 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of LTCG exemption and the addition of commission. It found that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the genuineness of the transactions, especially given the suspicious nature of the share price appreciation and the company's involvement in fraudulent IPOs.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption for Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of shares of M/s. HPC Biosciences Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the exemption, citing investigation reports indicating the company was a penny stock used for generating bogus LTCG. The AO also added a commission amount.

What were the issues?

Whether the LTCG claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) was genuine, or if it was a case of bogus LTCG generated through penny stock manipulation. Whether the addition on account of alleged commission paid was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(16)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

The Assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-36, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 13.02.2019 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed his return of income declaring an amount at Rs.6,15,950/- on 08.09.2015 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee.

3.

The assessee is a Director in M/s. KTV Projects Pvt. Ltd. and received salary from the same. Further,

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →