https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787228 Whether Assessing Officer additions treating declared long term capital gains as unexplained can be sustained was decided by focusing on evidentiary sufficiency: the tribunal held that contemporaneous documentary proof of share acquisition, banking payments, dematerialisation, disclosure in successive balance sheets, declaration of capital gains and payment of MAT met the preponderance of probability test, and that generalized SEBI findings or a broad modus operandi theory without case specific adverse findings did not establish nexus to the assessee. Outcome: the additions under unexplained receipt doctrines and denial of exemption were set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Feb 2026 18:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787228 Whether Assessing Officer additions treating declared long term capital gains as unexplained can be sustained was decided by focusing on evidentiary sufficiency: the tribunal held that contemporaneous documentary proof of share acquisition, banking payments, dematerialisation, disclosure in successive balance sheets, declaration of capital gains and payment of MAT met the preponderance of probability test, and that generalized SEBI findings or a broad modus operandi theory without case specific adverse findings did not establish nexus to the assessee. Outcome: the additions under unexplained receipt doctrines and denial of exemption were set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787228