https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78702 The Appellate Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 68 as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of LTCG claimed u/s 10(38). The AO found discrepancies in off-market share purchases, delay in dematerialization, and pooling shares with broker. Despite STT payment, the SC ruling highlighted manipulative transactions. The assessee couldn't explain the adverse evidence, leading to confirmation of AO's findings. The onus to prove genuineness wasn't met, making the LTCG claim a facade. The addition was upheld as the assessee failed to establish the credit entry's genuineness. The entire sale consideration wasn't added u/s 68, but the LTCG claim was deemed sham. Decision favored the Revenue due to lack of evidence from the assessee. en-us Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:47:58 +0530 Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:47:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78702 The Appellate Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 68 as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of LTCG claimed u/s 10(38). The AO found discrepancies in off-market share purchases, delay in dematerialization, and pooling shares with broker. Despite STT payment, the SC ruling highlighted manipulative transactions. The assessee couldn't explain the adverse evidence, leading to confirmation of AO's findings. The onus to prove genuineness wasn't met, making the LTCG claim a facade. The addition was upheld as the assessee failed to establish the credit entry's genuineness. The entire sale consideration wasn't added u/s 68, but the LTCG claim was deemed sham. Decision favored the Revenue due to lack of evidence from the assessee. Highlights Income Tax Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:47:58 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78702