https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440015 In a challenge to an income-tax addition under s.68 based on alleged penny stock purchases, the dominant issue was whether the assessee's transactions could be treated as unexplained credits in the absence of incriminating material. The HC had held that the assessee was not named by any person in the investigation and no material relating to the assessee was recovered in the investigation conducted by the Investigation Wing, undermining the factual basis for invoking s.68. The SC found no ground to interfere under Art. 136 and dismissed the SLP, leaving the deletion of the s.68 addition undisturbed. en-us Mon, 03 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440015 In a challenge to an income-tax addition under s.68 based on alleged penny stock purchases, the dominant issue was whether the assessee's transactions could be treated as unexplained credits in the absence of incriminating material. The HC had held that the assessee was not named by any person in the investigation and no material relating to the assessee was recovered in the investigation conducted by the Investigation Wing, undermining the factual basis for invoking s.68. The SC found no ground to interfere under Art. 136 and dismissed the SLP, leaving the deletion of the s.68 addition undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 03 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440015