INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. HITESH MANGILAL JAIN, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 257/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 December 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 were devoid of merit. The documentary evidence could not be rejected solely based on the statements of individuals not produced for cross-examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on sale of shares as exempt under Section 10(38). The Revenue treated these gains as unexplained credit under Section 68, alleging the shares were from penny stock companies with rigged prices. The assessee provided documentary evidence for the transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether LTCG from sale of shares in penny stock companies can be treated as unexplained credit without establishing a money trail or allowing cross-examination of adverse witnesses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 68,Section 147,Section 271(1)(c),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(17)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.

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan Jain
For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 28.11.2024Pronounced: 31.12.2024

आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

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 →