6. CIT v. Jasvinder Kaur

54 Taxmann.com 10High Court2015#2008 most cited

What is 6. CIT v. Jasvinder Kaur authority for?

The Assessing Officer must provide the assessee with contrary material if they dispute the genuineness of long-term capital gains claimed under section 10(38). The onus is on the revenue to prove the transaction is a colourable device.

57

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jasvinder Kaur · section 10(38) · long term capital gains · bogus LTCG · penny stock · colourable device · onus on revenue · documentary evidence · price rigging · accommodation entry

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing 6. CIT v. Jasvinder Kaur