AMIT GOYAL HUF,NEW DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

ITA 1159/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 February 2026AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities erred in treating the LTCG as bogus. It noted that the assessee provided substantial documentary evidence and that SEBI had exonerated the assessee in related proceedings. The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(38) for Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on the sale of shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied this exemption, treating the share transactions as bogus and making an addition under Section 68. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the LTCG on sale of shares is genuine and eligible for exemption under Section 10(38), or if it constitutes unexplained income under Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 “A’’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA
For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.12.2025Pronounced: 16.02.2026

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. NFAC order dated 31.1.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-10/10352/2017-18. Assessment was framed by the ITO, Ward 30(1), New Delhi dated 30.12.2017 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred the Act) relevant for the assessment year 2015-

16.

The following is the solitary ground of appeal raised by the assessee:- “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the AO in denying the exemption claimed u/s. 10(38) amounting to Rs. 1,16,65,248/- in respect of Long Term Capital Gain

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 →