https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17290 Whether a notional addition could be made where shares were transferred at book value below quoted market value was the dominant issue. The HC held that, since the genuineness of the share transfer was undisputed, there was no understatement or misstatement of consideration, and there was no direct or inferential evidence that the assessee received the differential amount by concealment or fraudulent means, the Revenue could not treat the market-to-book difference as income. Relying on SC and consistent HC authority, it upheld the appellate deletion of the addition, answering the question against the Revenue. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 13:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17290 Whether a notional addition could be made where shares were transferred at book value below quoted market value was the dominant issue. The HC held that, since the genuineness of the share transfer was undisputed, there was no understatement or misstatement of consideration, and there was no direct or inferential evidence that the assessee received the differential amount by concealment or fraudulent means, the Revenue could not treat the market-to-book difference as income. Relying on SC and consistent HC authority, it upheld the appellate deletion of the addition, answering the question against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17290