HITESH MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 261/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 December 2024AY 2015-1631 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence. The additions were based on surmises and conjectures without allowing cross-examination of third parties, violating principles of natural justice.

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 they arose from penny stock transactions. The CIT(A) upheld the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether LTCG on sale of shares claimed as exempt are genuine or unexplained credit. Whether additions based on investigation reports without cross-examination are valid.

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

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No.261/MUM/2024
ITA No.262/MUM/2024
ITA No.257/MUM/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

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 →