Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of share capital and share premium received from the investor companies was justified.
Analysis: The assessee furnished the relevant primary evidence, including balance sheets, bank statements, confirmations, income-tax particulars, ROC records and supporting material for the share applicants. Notices issued under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were complied with, and one of the investor-company directors appeared and was examined under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that, on the facts of the case, the assessee established the identity of the investors, the genuineness of the transactions and their creditworthiness. It further held that the proviso to section 68, requiring a closely held company to explain the source of the share capital or premium, was inserted prospectively and did not apply to assessment year 2012-13.
Conclusion: The addition under section 68 was not sustainable and was rightly deleted.
Ratio Decidendi: For assessment years prior to the insertion of the proviso to section 68, an assessee receiving share capital or share premium discharges its burden by proving the identity of the subscriber, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the subscriber; it is not required to prove the source of the source.