https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32688 HC held the claimed cash gifts were sham and correctly added to the assessee's income under Section 68. The court ruled the assessee bore the onus to prove donor identity, capacity to gift and actual receipt; mere bank movement was insufficient. Evidence showed the donor lacked means and motive to make large gifts, visits or affection were absent, and no satisfactory explanation was offered. The assessing officer's adverse opinion thus stood as prima facie evidence of income and the transactions were held not bona fide. Costs were imposed on the appellant. en-us Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Nov 2025 14:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32688 HC held the claimed cash gifts were sham and correctly added to the assessee's income under Section 68. The court ruled the assessee bore the onus to prove donor identity, capacity to gift and actual receipt; mere bank movement was insufficient. Evidence showed the donor lacked means and motive to make large gifts, visits or affection were absent, and no satisfactory explanation was offered. The assessing officer's adverse opinion thus stood as prima facie evidence of income and the transactions were held not bona fide. Costs were imposed on the appellant. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32688