https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776435 The ITAT Mumbai held that additions under section 68 for alleged bogus long-term capital gains were not justified as the AO relied on general observations and investigation reports without confronting the assessee or providing opportunity for cross-examination. The assessee's specific evidence was uncontroverted, and no direct evidence proving the transactions as bogus was produced. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the tribunal emphasized that additions cannot be based on suspicion or conjecture and that the burden to prove bogusness lies strictly on the revenue with legal evidence. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Aug 2025 15:14:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776435 The ITAT Mumbai held that additions under section 68 for alleged bogus long-term capital gains were not justified as the AO relied on general observations and investigation reports without confronting the assessee or providing opportunity for cross-examination. The assessee's specific evidence was uncontroverted, and no direct evidence proving the transactions as bogus was produced. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the tribunal emphasized that additions cannot be based on suspicion or conjecture and that the burden to prove bogusness lies strictly on the revenue with legal evidence. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776435