Section 68 addition on share capital and share premium upheld as deleted; no substantial question of law arose on identical facts.

In an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, the Calcutta HC considered whether deletion of an addition under Section 68 relating to share capital and share premium, said to arise from a barter arrangement, warranted interference. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, but the Court found that no substantial question of law arose because the controversy was already covered by an earlier decision on identical facts in which the revenue's challenge had failed. The substantial question of law was therefore answered against the revenue, and the deletion of the Section 68 addition was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the deletion of the addition made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of share capital and share premium, arising out of the alleged barter arrangement, called for interference in appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the Court proceeded to consider whether any substantial question of law arose. The issue raised was covered by an earlier decision of the same Court on identical facts, where the same type of addition had been dealt with and the revenue's challenge had failed.

Conclusion: The substantial question of law was answered against the revenue, and the deletion of the addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was upheld.

---