Ramprasad Aggarwal v. ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai
100 Taxmann.com 172Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#2157 most cited
What is Ramprasad Aggarwal v. ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai authority for?
A share transaction, substantiated by documentary evidence such as payment by cheque, dematerialization, holding in a Demat account, and sale proceeds through banking channels, cannot be deemed bogus merely on suspicion or surmises without cogent contrary material from the revenue.
53
judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.
Also referred to as
Ramprasad Aggarwal v. ITO · Section 10(38) · Section 68 · bogus long term capital gain · penny stock · demat account evidence · genuineness of share transactions · suspicion and surmises · third party information · entry operator
Sections most often in play
Issues it is cited on
Judgments citing Ramprasad Aggarwal v. ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai
Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3