https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776731 Addition under section 68 was challenged on the ground that mere identity of the investor discharges the assessee's onus. The court held that identity alone is insufficient; the assessee must additionally prove creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions by showing the payer's capacity and means, and satisfy the required evidentiary standard. The High Court's conclusion on these requirements was left undisturbed, and the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, so the addition stands subject to the established requirement that creditworthiness and genuineness be demonstrated. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Feb 2026 13:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776731 Addition under section 68 was challenged on the ground that mere identity of the investor discharges the assessee's onus. The court held that identity alone is insufficient; the assessee must additionally prove creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions by showing the payer's capacity and means, and satisfy the required evidentiary standard. The High Court's conclusion on these requirements was left undisturbed, and the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, so the addition stands subject to the established requirement that creditworthiness and genuineness be demonstrated. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776731