https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238582 The HC held that suspicion alone cannot replace proof in determining the genuineness of a transaction. The Tribunal's finding, based on evidence, that the sale and repurchase of shares was not a colourable transaction or intended to evade tax was upheld. The court rejected the AO's view that the transaction was a sham due to the assessee financing the sale to a group company and repurchasing the same shares. The loss from the sale was allowed to be set off against long-term capital gains. The decision favored the assessee and distinguished the precedent relied upon by the Revenue. en-us Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Aug 2025 14:35:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238582 The HC held that suspicion alone cannot replace proof in determining the genuineness of a transaction. The Tribunal's finding, based on evidence, that the sale and repurchase of shares was not a colourable transaction or intended to evade tax was upheld. The court rejected the AO's view that the transaction was a sham due to the assessee financing the sale to a group company and repurchasing the same shares. The loss from the sale was allowed to be set off against long-term capital gains. The decision favored the assessee and distinguished the precedent relied upon by the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238582