Addition under section 68 requiring proof of investor creditworthiness and genuineness upheld; Supreme Court dismisses appeals Addition under section 68 was challenged on the ground that mere identity of the investor discharges the assessee's onus. The court held that identity ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Addition under section 68 requiring proof of investor creditworthiness and genuineness upheld; Supreme Court dismisses appeals
Addition under section 68 was challenged on the ground that mere identity of the investor discharges the assessee's onus. The court held that identity alone is insufficient; the assessee must additionally prove creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions by showing the payer's capacity and means, and satisfy the required evidentiary standard. The High Court's conclusion on these requirements was left undisturbed, and the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, so the addition stands subject to the established requirement that creditworthiness and genuineness be demonstrated.
The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and materials on record, declined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The Court concluded that there was no sufficient ground to warrant intervention. Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of. The judgment underscores the principle that appellate interference is unwarranted absent a demonstrable error or miscarriage of justice in the High Court's order.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
