Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2020 (10) TMI 614 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal upholds deletion of addition under Section 68 Income Tax Act for unexplained share application. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order directing the deletion of the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained share ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Tribunal upholds deletion of addition under Section 68 Income Tax Act for unexplained share application.

                          The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order directing the deletion of the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained share application/share premium. The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately proven the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors, while criticizing the AO for not conducting further inquiries and relying solely on third-party statements without allowing for cross-examination. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision and emphasizing the importance of conducting independent investigations.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Deletion of addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained share application/share premium.
                          2. Satisfaction of the three ingredients required under Section 68: identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors.
                          3. Reliance on statements from third parties without cross-examination.
                          4. Failure of the Assessing Officer (AO) to conduct further inquiries.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Deletion of Addition Made Under Section 68:
                          The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained share application/share premium. The AO had treated the investments from three companies as unexplained cash credits based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, which indicated that the assessee had availed accommodation entries from companies related to Praveen Kumar Jain.

                          2. Satisfaction of the Three Ingredients Under Section 68:
                          The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had discharged its burden by providing necessary information to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transactions. The assessee submitted details such as PAN, income tax returns, audited financial statements, bank statements, and other relevant documents of the investor companies. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO failed to make further inquiries and did not specify what additional material was required. The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition, stating that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application transactions.

                          3. Reliance on Statements from Third Parties Without Cross-Examination:
                          The AO relied on statements from Praveen Kumar Jain, who allegedly provided accommodation entries. However, these statements were not confronted to the assessee, nor was the opportunity for cross-examination provided. The CIT(A) noted that the AO's reliance on such statements without giving the assessee a chance to rebut them was unjustified. The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO should have conducted independent inquiries and not solely relied on third-party statements.

                          4. Failure of the AO to Conduct Further Inquiries:
                          The CIT(A) highlighted that the AO did not conduct any independent inquiries into the information submitted by the assessee. Despite the assessee providing substantial documentary evidence, the AO disregarded this and relied only on the statements from the Investigation Wing. The CIT(A) found that the AO's approach was flawed as he did not utilize the credible material available to him nor did he specify what additional information was required from the assessee.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the assessee had satisfactorily discharged its burden under Section 68 by providing comprehensive details to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to conduct further inquiries and relied solely on third-party statements without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be reasoned and logical, and thus, dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 12.10.2020.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found