https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463224 The HC held that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition under Section 68 by failing to properly consider the AO's findings on the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal relied solely on the assessee establishing the source of funds without addressing material evidence that questioned the transactions' authenticity. The mere identity of the investors was insufficient to discharge the onus; the assessee was required to prove the capacity and means of the entities involved. The HC found the Tribunal's conclusion perverse and incomplete, as it ignored critical aspects of the AO's assessment. The order deleting the addition was set aside, and the decision was against the assessee. en-us Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:52:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463224 The HC held that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition under Section 68 by failing to properly consider the AO's findings on the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal relied solely on the assessee establishing the source of funds without addressing material evidence that questioned the transactions' authenticity. The mere identity of the investors was insufficient to discharge the onus; the assessee was required to prove the capacity and means of the entities involved. The HC found the Tribunal's conclusion perverse and incomplete, as it ignored critical aspects of the AO's assessment. The order deleting the addition was set aside, and the decision was against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463224