The assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) in respect of long-term capital gains arising from the sale of equity shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. (formerly Santoshima Tradelinks Ltd.). The Assessing Officer treated the transaction as a bogus penny stock transaction, denied the exemption, made an addition under section 68 and further made an estimated addition towards alleged commission for obtaining accommodation entries. The Tribunal observed that the shares had been purchased through banking channels, reflected as investments, credited to the assessee’s demat account and sold through a recognised stock exchange. The Revenue did not point out any defect in the documentary evidence nor bring any material on record to establish that the assessee was a party to price manipulation or accommodation entries. Following the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) v. ITO, Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan v. DCIT, Rambilas S. Agarwal v. DCIT and the Gujarat High Court decision in PCIT v. Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar, the Tribunal held that the claim of exempt long-term capital gain could not be disbelieved merely on the basis of general allegations regarding the scrip. The addition under section 68 was deleted, and the consequential addition towards alleged commission became infructuous. ( ITA No. 1216/Mum/2026, dt.21-07-2026, (AY. 2014-15)