Issues: Whether the unsecured loans treated as accommodation entries could be added as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the consequential interest and connected tax consequences could be sustained.

Analysis: The assessee produced confirmations, bank statements, income-tax returns, ledger accounts and other supporting material to establish the identity of the lenders, the movement of funds through banking channels, repayment of the loans in subsequent periods, and deduction of tax at source on interest payments. The additions were founded mainly on the lenders' meagre income and a general statement of an entry provider, without direct or circumstantial evidence showing any cash trail, any return of the assessee's own money, or any proximate nexus between the assessee and alleged accommodation entries. Once primary evidence was furnished, the evidentiary burden shifted to the Revenue to disprove the transactions with contrary material, which was not done.

Conclusion: The additions under section 68 were not sustainable, and the assessee succeeded on the merits of both appeals.

Final Conclusion: The unsecured loan additions and the consequential disallowances and related consequences were deleted, and both appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee furnishes primary evidence establishing identity, banking trail and repayment of loans, a cash-credit addition cannot be sustained merely on suspicion, low income of creditors, or a general allegation of accommodation entries in the absence of a live link or contrary material from the Revenue.

Issues: Whether, for estimating the cost of construction of the house property, the valuation should be based on State PWD rates instead of CPWD rates, what deduction should be allowed for self-supervision, and whether any addition survived when the revised estimate fell within the tolerance range.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had adopted CPWD rates and allowed only 7.5% deduction for self-supervision. It held that local State PWD rates better reflect market conditions for valuation and that, in the facts of the case, a 15% deduction for self-supervision was justified. By applying the higher local-rate adjustment together with the enhanced self-supervision deduction, the difference between the declared cost and the estimated cost became marginal and fell within the accepted tolerance band.

Conclusion: No addition was sustainable on account of cost of construction, and the assessee succeeded on the valuation issue while the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The estimated investment in construction was brought within the permissible tolerance margin after adopting local valuation rates and proper deductions, so the addition was deleted in full.

Ratio Decidendi: For property valuation in income-tax proceedings, local State PWD rates should be preferred over CPWD rates where they better reflect local market conditions, and a reasonable deduction for self-supervision must be allowed before determining any unexplained investment.

Issues: (i) Whether the 4 gm/9 gm pouches of spit tobacco attracted duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or were excluded by Rule 34(1)(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977; (ii) whether the demand could be sustained on the basis of alleged 15 gm pouches in the absence of quantifiable evidence; (iii) whether the classification dispute was material to the levy in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the 4 gm/9 gm pouches of spit tobacco attracted duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or were excluded by Rule 34(1)(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.

Analysis: The duty demand was founded on MRP-based valuation under Section 4A. The packages in question were small pouches of 4 gm/9 gm, and the record showed that Rule 34(1)(b) excluded packages containing a commodity of 10 grams or less from the MRP requirements. The circular relied upon in the order also clarified the scope of the exemption for such small packages.

Conclusion: The 4 gm/9 gm pouches did not attract Section 4A, and the levy on that basis was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained on the basis of alleged 15 gm pouches in the absence of quantifiable evidence.

Analysis: The record did not contain pouch-wise breakup or quantified data establishing manufacture or clearance of 15 gm pouches. The allegation remained unsupported by the show cause notice or by reliable evidence sufficient to quantify duty liability. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt was held to lie with the appellants.

Conclusion: The alleged 15 gm pouch demand was not proved and could not be sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the classification dispute was material to the levy in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Although the parties addressed classification, the decisive question was whether the goods were chargeable under Section 4A. Since the packages fell outside the MRP-based levy and the demand was not supported by proof of any separately quantifiable 15 gm clearances, the classification question did not affect the result.

Conclusion: The classification issue was immaterial to the outcome.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and consequential penalty were set aside because the small pouches were outside the Section 4A regime and the alternative allegation of larger pouches was not established on evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged MRP-based duty is founded on packages of 10 grams or less, Rule 34(1)(b) excludes such packages from the MRP provisions, and a revenue demand based on unquantified larger-pack allegation cannot be sustained without reliable evidence.

Issues: Whether proceedings under Section 74 could be sustained, and interest and penalty could be levied, where the input tax credit had been voluntarily reversed before issuance of the show-cause notice and the electronic credit ledger retained sufficient balance, in the absence of independent material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax.

Analysis: The writ petitions arose from demands raised under Section 74 on the footing that the petitioners had availed input tax credit on invoices issued by a supplier later described as non-existent. The record showed that the petitioners had reversed the entire disputed credit in their returns before issuance of the show-cause notice and had intimated the department accordingly. The impugned orders proceeded largely on the basis of an alert notice and third-party statements, without independent inquiry into the petitioners' complicity or any material establishing conscious evasion. The reasoning further notes that Section 74 is attracted only where tax is short paid or input tax credit is wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax, and that mere non-payment or a disputed availment does not by itself justify invocation of the extended period. On interest, the judgment applies Section 50(3), Rule 88B of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and the departmental clarification dated 17.07.2023 to hold that where the electronic credit ledger never fell below the disputed amount, the credit cannot be treated as utilised and interest is not exigible. The order also treats the demand of tax again, after voluntary reversal, as resulting in impermissible double recovery.

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 74 was unsustainable, no interest was payable on the facts found, and the penalty demand could not stand; the impugned order was quashed in favour of the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 74 cannot be invoked without independent material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax, and interest under Section 50(3) is not leviable unless the wrongly availed input tax credit is shown to have been utilised by the electronic credit ledger falling below the disputed amount.

Issues: (i) Whether additions towards alleged on-money for property purchase and protective addition relating to the Navbhar property were sustainable in the absence of corroborative evidence and on the basis of unsigned or third-party documents; (ii) Whether additions for alleged unaccounted purchases from Shri Kapil Gupta could be made against the assessees on the strength of diaries and third-party search material; (iii) Whether protective additions on account of alleged unaccounted purchases and corresponding profit element in the hands of Shri Inder Kalta and M/s Kalta Liquors could survive, and whether additions for stock deficiency, bullion, unexplained expenditure and undisclosed rental income were justified.

Issue (i): Whether additions towards alleged on-money for property purchase and protective addition relating to the Navbhar property were sustainable in the absence of corroborative evidence and on the basis of unsigned or third-party documents.

Analysis: The additions were founded on search material from a third party, an unsigned and unregistered agreement to sell, contradictory valuation reports and chat extracts, without any enquiry from the seller or direct proof of cash payment. The property in question was shown to have been purchased through banking channels, and the material relied upon did not establish that the assessees had actually paid any cash over and above the recorded consideration. Mere suspicion, assumptions and uncorroborated loose material were held insufficient to support the additions.

Conclusion: The additions on account of alleged on-money and the protective addition relating to the Navbhar property were deleted and were not sustainable in the hands of the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether additions for alleged unaccounted purchases from Shri Kapil Gupta could be made against the assessees on the strength of diaries and third-party search material.

Analysis: The diaries were seized from the premises of Shri Kapil Gupta and contained only generic references such as "Kalta". No specific reference to the assessees or their concerns was found, and no concrete linkage was established between those entries and the assessees. The presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C was held to operate against the person from whose possession the material was found, not automatically against third parties. In the absence of corroborative evidence of unaccounted purchases or matching unaccounted sales, the additions could not stand.

Conclusion: The additions for alleged unaccounted purchases from Shri Kapil Gupta were deleted.

Issue (iii): Whether protective additions on account of alleged unaccounted purchases and corresponding profit element in the hands of Shri Inder Kalta and M/s Kalta Liquors could survive, and whether additions for stock deficiency, bullion, unexplained expenditure and undisclosed rental income were justified.

Analysis: The protective additions for alleged unaccounted purchases and related profit element were examined in the light of the regulated nature of liquor business, the absence of any concrete evidence linking the seized entries to the assessees, and the lack of trace of unaccounted sales in the relevant concerns. The separate additions for stock deficiency were upheld where the shortfall in physical stock remained unreconciled. The addition for bullion was deleted because the source of payment was explained from withdrawals and regular records. The addition for unexplained expenditure based on rough jottings was deleted for want of dates, details and corroboration. The undisclosed rental income was sustained because it rested on a credible statement under section 132(4) and no evidence of a family HUF or its tax identity was produced.

Conclusion: The protective additions for alleged unaccounted purchases and related profit element were deleted, the stock-deficiency additions were sustained, the bullion and unexplained-expenditure additions were deleted, and the addition for undisclosed rental income was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The assessees obtained relief on the principal disputed additions based on third-party search material and uncorroborated documents, while limited additions such as stock-related differences and undisclosed rental income were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Additions under the search-related deeming provisions cannot rest on third-party documents, loose sheets or unregistered and unsigned materials unless they are independently corroborated and specifically linked to the assessee; presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C are confined to the person from whose possession the material is found and do not, by themselves, justify additions against others.

Issues: Whether belated filing of Form 67 under Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 could justify denial of Foreign Tax Credit claimed under sections 90 and 90A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The appeals concerned denial of Foreign Tax Credit solely on the ground that Form 67 was filed after the due date under section 139(1). The governing question was whether the time limit in Rule 128(9) is mandatory or merely procedural. The decision followed the view that the rule does not expressly provide forfeiture of credit for delayed filing, and that denial of a substantive treaty-based or statutory credit cannot be founded only on a technical lapse when the underlying entitlement is otherwise satisfied. Since the facts were found to be identical to earlier coordinate bench decisions, the delay in filing Form 67 was treated as a curable procedural default.

Conclusion: Belated filing of Form 67 did not warrant denial of Foreign Tax Credit, and the requirement was held to be directory rather than mandatory. The assessee was entitled to the credit and the delay was directed to be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural filing requirement cannot defeat a substantive claim for Foreign Tax Credit where the statute or rule does not expressly prescribe forfeiture for delayed compliance.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 for goods covered by Serial No. 399 of Chapter/Heading No. 9801 meant for power generation projects, notwithstanding the exclusion relating to captive power plants set up by projects engaged in activities other than power generation.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the applicability of the exemption entry to the appellant's import claim. The Tribunal had found, on the facts and the governing notification, that the goods did not qualify for the concessional treatment claimed. On review of the record, the Court accepted that the Tribunal's conclusion accorded with both the legal position under the notification and the factual matrix of the case.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the exemption benefit and the finding against the claim was upheld.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative statutory remedy, and whether the High Court's observation on delay should be allowed to prejudice the petitioner's recourse to that remedy.

Analysis: The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy was not found erroneous. However, the observation that the petitioner had not satisfactorily explained the delay was considered unnecessary when the writ petition was being rejected on the ground of statutory remedy, since the question of delay would fall for consideration before the forum where the alternative remedy is pursued. To prevent prejudice, liberty was granted to avail the statutory remedy within a specified period, with a clarification that the delay observation would not itself be a ground to reject the matter before the appellate forum. Interim protection was also directed for a limited period to enable filing of the appeal and seeking interim relief.

Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue the alternative statutory remedy, along with limited interim protection and a clarification that the delay observation would not by itself operate against the petitioner before the appellate forum.

Outcome: The special leave petition and the application for condonation of delay were dismissed on the ground that the petition was directed against the wrong order, while delay was condoned and notice was issued in the connected matters, with service to be effected by all modes.

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the assessee's Chartered Accountant-certified segmental financial statements for the software development segment was justified for determining the arm's length price; (ii) Whether the separate adjustment made on overdue receivables was sustainable and whether working capital adjustment and foreign-currency benchmarking required reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the assessee's Chartered Accountant-certified segmental financial statements for the software development segment was justified for determining the arm's length price.

Analysis: The assessee had maintained segmental results for AE and non-AE businesses, and the evidence before the lower authorities included a Chartered Accountant-certified segmental analysis. The rejection was based substantially on the absence of audit status and on wide margin variation between the two segments. Such grounds, by themselves, were insufficient to discard the evidence at the threshold. The segmental allocation methodology and the basis of expense apportionment required proper examination, and the evidence could not be rejected without first testing its reliability and, if necessary, calling for further clarification or verification.

Conclusion: The rejection of the segmental financial statements was not sustained. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and redetermination of the arm's length price after considering the segmental data.

Issue (ii): Whether the separate adjustment made on overdue receivables was sustainable and whether working capital adjustment and foreign-currency benchmarking required reconsideration.

Analysis: The receivables adjustment had to be examined in the context of the transfer pricing exercise as a whole. The claim for working capital adjustment required reconsideration on the basis of the comparables selected and the principles governing arm's length computation. If working capital adjustment was found allowable, the separate receivables adjustment would not survive. If not, the transaction could still be treated as a separate international transaction, but the benchmark could not rest on State Bank of India PLR when the invoices were in foreign currency; a foreign-currency benchmark such as LIBOR with appropriate markup was indicated.

Conclusion: The receivables issue was allowed to the extent of requiring reconsideration of working capital adjustment and foreign-currency benchmarking, with consequential impact on the addition.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with the transfer pricing additions not finally upheld and the matter remitted for fresh determination on the identified issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Chartered Accountant-certified segmental results cannot be discarded merely because they are unaudited or show margin variation, and a separate receivables adjustment must be tested in the light of the transfer pricing analysis, including working capital effects and appropriate foreign-currency benchmarking.

Issues: Whether reassessment was vitiated because the Assessing Officer did not dispose of the assessee's objections to reopening by a separate speaking order before completing assessment.

Analysis: The assessment was reopened under the provisions governing reassessment, and the core controversy was whether the objections raised against the notice were properly decided before the reassessment was completed. The Tribunal applied the principle that objections to reopening must be disposed of by a speaking order before proceeding further. It found, on the record, that the communication relied upon by the Revenue did not deal with the assessee's objections in substance and therefore did not amount to a valid disposal of objections. The Tribunal also treated dismissal of the earlier special leave petition at the threshold as not constituting a declaration of law binding under Article 141.

Conclusion: The reassessment was held unsustainable for non-disposal of objections in the prescribed manner, and the assessee succeeded.

Issues: Validity of the assessment on the ground that the notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued by an officer not competent to do so under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, resulting in a jurisdictional defect.

Analysis: The additional ground was entertained as a pure question of law requiring no fresh factual investigation. The assessment was tested against CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 issued under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which governs allocation of jurisdiction on the basis of pecuniary limits. On the facts, the declared income was below the threshold prescribed for the Assistant Commissioner, so the power to issue the notice under section 143(2) vested in the Income-tax Officer. Since the notice initiating assessment was issued by an officer lacking such competence, the assumption of jurisdiction for the assessment under section 143(3) was held to be invalid. The objection raised in relation to pecuniary jurisdiction was treated as materially different from a mere issue of concurrent territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The additional ground was allowed and the assessment was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where jurisdiction to issue a notice for scrutiny assessment is allocated by a binding CBDT instruction under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a notice issued by an officer lacking such pecuniary competence vitiates the assessment proceedings.

Issues: Whether the imported poultry feed premix products, containing vitamins, pro-vitamins, amino acids, stabilisers and carriers, are classifiable under heading 2309 as preparations of a kind used in animal feeding or under heading 2936 as provitamins and vitamins.

Analysis: The products were found, on the basis of their composition, manufacturing process, declared end-use and technical literature, to be compound preparations customised for poultry feeding and not vitamins of general use. The HSN Explanatory Notes to heading 2309 include premixes used for making complete or supplementary animal feeds, particularly where active ingredients are combined with carriers to secure homogeneous dispersion in feed. The notes to heading 2936 cover vitamins and their stabilised forms only where additives are for preservation or transport and do not render the product specially suitable for a specific use. Here, the carriers and other ingredients were not merely preservative or transport aids but were integral to the product's specific function in poultry feed. The classification was also supported by the cited circulars and precedents recognising feed premixes containing vitamins and amino acids as animal feed preparations.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2309, more specifically under CTI 2309 90 90, and not under heading 2936.

Issues: (i) Whether contravention of Regulation 5(1)(iv) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) Regulations, 2000 could sustain penalty against the account holders, notwithstanding that the provision also regulated the authorised dealer and had been omitted later; (ii) Whether confiscation of the amounts lying in the NRNR accounts could be sustained without recorded reasons.

Issue (i): Whether contravention of Regulation 5(1)(iv) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) Regulations, 2000 could sustain penalty against the account holders, notwithstanding that the provision also regulated the authorised dealer and had been omitted later.

Analysis: Regulation 5(1)(iv), read with Schedule 4, permitted NRNR accounts to be opened only by persons resident outside India and out of funds remitted from outside India through normal banking channels. The obligation was not confined to the authorised dealer alone; the account holder was also bound by the regulatory scheme. Contravention therefore attracted liability under Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The later omission of Regulation 5(1)(iv) did not erase prior violations or prevent proceedings in respect of conduct committed when the regulation was in force. The effect of omission was only prospective and did not nullify accrued liability.

Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty failed. The penalty against the assessees was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the amounts lying in the NRNR accounts could be sustained without recorded reasons.

Analysis: Confiscation under Section 13(2) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 is discretionary and quasi-judicial in nature. The authority must record reasons showing why penalty alone is insufficient and why confiscation is warranted on the facts. Here, neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Appellate Tribunal gave reasons for confiscating the amounts in the accounts, and the record showed that the loan transaction had been repaid through maturity proceeds with no loss of foreign exchange. A non-speaking confiscatory order could not stand. In view of the long lapse of time, remand was declined.

Conclusion: The confiscation directions were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The regulatory violation and consequent penalty were upheld, but the confiscation of the amounts in the NRNR accounts was annulled for want of reasons.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision omitted from a fiscal or regulatory regime does not obliterate liability incurred for its breach while it was in force, and discretionary confiscation affecting property must rest on recorded reasons demonstrating why penalty alone is inadequate.

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation and whether delay beyond the statutory condonable period could be excused under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The appeal against the original order was filed after the expiry of the normal two-month period and also beyond the additional one-month period available on showing sufficient cause. Section 85(3A) permits filing within two months from receipt of the decision or order and authorises condonation only for a further period of one month. The statutory scheme does not confer power on the appellate authority to condone delay beyond that outer limit. The appellant's own pleaded date of communication established that the appeal had been filed after the condonable period. The limitation issue was therefore controlled by the express statutory restriction, and the cited authorities on limitation supported the view that the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed beyond the prescribed extended period.

Conclusion: The appeal was correctly dismissed as time-barred, and no further condonation could be granted.

Issues: Whether the direction to avail the alternative statutory remedy warranted interference.

Analysis: The impugned writ proceedings concerned a claim for differential duty. The High Court had declined to entertain the matter and directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with that course and permitted the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of, with liberty to avail the appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether the absolute confiscation of gold and the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable, and whether the penalty required reduction having regard to the appellant's role as a carrier.

Analysis: Gold is a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the person in possession must prove lawful source and procurement. The appellant was found carrying 12 pieces of foreign-inscribed gold biscuits weighing 1199.570 grams without any supporting document. The explanation that he was merely a carrier did not displace the statutory burden, and the finding of smuggling was maintained. However, the appellant's limited role as a carrier earning a small amount was taken into account while considering the quantum of penalty.

Conclusion: The absolute confiscation of the gold and the imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) were upheld, but the penalty was reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of penalty, while the confiscation and the finding of liability were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In respect of notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, failure to prove lawful possession or source justifies confiscation and penalty, though the quantum of penalty may be moderated based on the carrier's limited role.

Issues: Whether service tax, interest and penalty could be sustained when the amount was paid on departmental audit advice on a transaction later found not taxable, and whether the assessee's suo motu adjustment was impermissible because the refund claim had been rejected as time-barred and not separately challenged.

Analysis: The payment was made only on the instructions of the audit team, and the underlying transaction was found not liable to service tax. In that situation, the department could not retain the amount merely because the refund application was rejected on limitation or because the assessee did not appeal that rejection. The adjustment made by the assessee was treated as a technical correction of an erroneous payment and not as a mala fide or unlawful act. The consequential demand, interest and penalty could not survive once the foundation of taxability failed.

Conclusion: The service tax demand, interest and penalty were set aside, and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were annulled and the appeal was allowed in full, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tax has been paid under departmental insistence on a transaction later found non-taxable, procedural rejection of a refund claim does not validate retention of the amount or sustain consequential demand and penalty.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was liable to discharge Goods and Services Tax on the services rendered and commission paid to its pigmy agents.

Analysis: The determinative question was whether the pigmy agents were independent service providers or employees of the bank. Applying the settled control and economic dependence tests, the engagement terms showed pervasive bank control over work, remuneration, security deposit, disciplinary oversight, notice requirements, and regulated termination. The arrangement bore the incidents of employment and not an independent contract for service. Once that conclusion was reached, the statutory exemption under Section 7(2)(a) and Schedule III of the CGST Act operated, because services rendered by an employee to the employer in the course of employment are neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services. The attempt to characterise the pigmy agents as business facilitators or correspondents was rejected as a misdescription, since their role was confined to deposit collection under the bank's scheme and did not answer the RBI-regulated intermediary model. On that footing, the show cause notices founded on GST liability failed for want of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not liable to pay GST on the services rendered and commission paid to the pigmy agents, and the impugned show cause notices were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual indicators establish an employer-employee relationship, services rendered in the course of that employment fall outside the scope of GST under Schedule III, and a contrary tax demand founded on treating such employees as business facilitators cannot stand.

Issues: Whether the additions made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of unsecured loans and share application money were sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee furnished ledger accounts, bank statements, income-tax returns, audited financial statements, confirmations and other supporting documents for the lenders and share applicants. The material showed that the transactions had moved through banking channels, the counterparties had responded to notices issued under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the amounts received by way of unsecured loans had been repaid, along with interest where applicable, before the notice under section 148. On the share application money issue, the documents placed on record supported the identity and capacity of the applicants and the genuineness of the receipts. In these circumstances, the evidentiary burden stood discharged and the additions were not sustainable.

Conclusion: The additions under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were deleted and the assessee succeeded.