https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343859 The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 25 lac made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The burden to prove identity, capacity, and genuineness was not discharged, with disproportionate assets of investing companies indicating lack of genuine business activity. The premium per share raised doubts on transaction genuineness, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A). en-us Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jun 2017 06:20:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343859 The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 25 lac made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The burden to prove identity, capacity, and genuineness was not discharged, with disproportionate assets of investing companies indicating lack of genuine business activity. The premium per share raised doubts on transaction genuineness, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A). Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343859