TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bogus share application money and premium: addition under section 68 deleted after documentary proof of applicants identity and creditworthiness</h1> Addition under section 68 challenged concerning alleged bogus share application money including premium; central legal point is the assessees onus to ... Addition u/s 68 - bogus share application money including premium - onus to prove - addition made on non discharging of onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants as well as the genuineness of the share transactions HELD THAT:- Considering the ratio laid down in the case of Narsingh Ispat Limited [2023 (7) TMI 1389 - ITAT KOLKATA] we are satisfied that the same is squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case as before us, assessee has filed complete documentary evidence to explain the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the share transactions. We thus set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and delete the impugned addition - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. Issues: (i) Whether addition of Rs. 3,59,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for alleged unexplained share capital and share premium should be sustained where the assessee furnished documents to establish identity, creditworthiness of share applicants and genuineness of transactions.Analysis: The legal framework requires the assessee to discharge an initial burden by producing evidence establishing the identity of investors, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions; once produced, the burden shifts to the revenue to disprove those materials. The assessee submitted audited financial statements, bank statements, incorporation certificates, income-tax returns, PAN details, share application forms, confirmations and summons-directed submissions. The share premium charged was evaluated against book value and found not exorbitant. The revenue did not point to documentary discrepancies nor undertake substantive inquiry to disprove the materials; non-appearance of directors to summons alone was not treated as sufficient to sustain an addition. Comparative and binding precedents were applied to affirm that absent affirmative disproof by the revenue, additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained.Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 3,59,00,000/- under Section 68 is deleted and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
