9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue. 3. It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the issues in the appeal was in respect of the disallowance of the assessee's claim for exemption u/s.10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was a submission that the assessee has made purchases of shares of M/s. Regency Trust Limited. It was a submission that 2400 shares were purchased as early as in the assessment year 2005-2006 and 1200 shares were purchased before March 2010. The shares had been held for more than five years. The shares were purchased through the Bombay Stock Exchange [BSE] for a total consideration of Rs. 15,149/- and the payments were all made through cheques. The share broker was M/s. Networth Stock Broking Limited. It was a submission that after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i in I.T.A. No.1134/Chny/2019 dated 05.08.2019, as also the decision in the case of Vijay Kumar Baid [HUF] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Chennai in I.T.A. No.2300/Chny/2018 dated 24.01.2019 and the decision in the case of Smt. Nainimal Jain Anitha, Chennai in I.T.A. No.384/Chny/2019 dated 18.06.2019, wherein it has been held in para-5 as follows: "5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that this is not a case where the AO has been able to point out where the assessee has made a bogus claim of long term capital gains exempt u/s.10(38) of the Act. Further, perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that from page-2, para-4 to para 34, the AO has only made allegation in respect of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made through Demat Account and the payments and receipts through the banking channels only. More than anything else, in the assessee's case, the transactions are not transactions which are of twelve months or of around twelve months, these are transactions having more than five year holdings. Just because the company whose shares the assessee has dealt in has been identified as a Penny Stock, cannot make the transactions of the assessee ineligible for the deduction u/s.10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In these circumstances, respectfully following the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal referred to supra, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee the benefit of deduction u/s.10(38) as claimed. 7. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
