https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221281 The Court found that the appellant sufficiently explained the nature and source of deposits, meeting the burden of proof under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision to add the deposits under section 68 was deemed erroneous, considering the donors' tax compliance. The genuineness of the gifts received played a crucial role, and the Court upheld the importance of proving the authenticity of gifts in meeting the burden of proof. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's decision was set aside. en-us Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221281 The Court found that the appellant sufficiently explained the nature and source of deposits, meeting the burden of proof under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision to add the deposits under section 68 was deemed erroneous, considering the donors' tax compliance. The genuineness of the gifts received played a crucial role, and the Court upheld the importance of proving the authenticity of gifts in meeting the burden of proof. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's decision was set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221281