CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal

328 ITR 656High Court2010#385 most cited

What is CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal authority for?

When faced with allegations of bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks, the Assessing Officer must discharge the onus of proving that the assessee's transactions were not genuine. The assessee can rely on the principle of preponderance of probability, and the Revenue must present substantial evidence to establish that the transactions were a colourable device or that the assessee was an entry operator.

230

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal · section 10(38) · bogus long term capital gain · penny stock · period of holding · preponderance of probability · long term capital gains · entry operator · colourable device · cash credit · section 68

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal