https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423829 The HC upheld the AO's addition under Section 68 regarding bogus LTCG claims from penny stock transactions. The court found that assessees failed to prove genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of parties involved in the transactions. Despite production of incorporation details and PANs, the court held these insufficient when surrounding facts indicated manipulation. The court rejected the defense of relying on expert advice, stating assessees cannot escape consequences by claiming blind reliance on third-party recommendations. The HC concluded that share price manipulation was artificially orchestrated, making resultant gains tainted. The Tribunal erred in setting aside CIT(A)'s order affirming the AO's assessment and CIT's revision under Section 263. Decision favored revenue. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 May 2025 14:32:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423829 The HC upheld the AO's addition under Section 68 regarding bogus LTCG claims from penny stock transactions. The court found that assessees failed to prove genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of parties involved in the transactions. Despite production of incorporation details and PANs, the court held these insufficient when surrounding facts indicated manipulation. The court rejected the defense of relying on expert advice, stating assessees cannot escape consequences by claiming blind reliance on third-party recommendations. The HC concluded that share price manipulation was artificially orchestrated, making resultant gains tainted. The Tribunal erred in setting aside CIT(A)'s order affirming the AO's assessment and CIT's revision under Section 263. Decision favored revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423829