TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 2,13,50,000 made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as unexplained share capital and share premium is justified.
Analysis: The assessee produced documentary evidence to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscription transactions, including audited financial statements, bank records, income-tax acknowledgements, RBI registration where applicable, allotment advices and assessment orders of the subscriber entities under Section 143(3) for the same year. The Assessing Officer relied primarily on non-appearance of directors summoned under Section 131 without identifying any discrepancy in the documents or conducting independent enquiries to test the veracity of the evidences. The appellate authority did not demonstrate any specific defect in the furnished documents and rendered a non-speaking order. The Tribunal applied settled principles that once the assessee furnishes cogent documentary evidence on identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, the onus shifts to the revenue to make independent enquiries and point out deficiencies; further, amounts accepted or added in the hands of subscriber entities cannot be double-added in the recipient's hands. The Tribunal followed relevant precedents and concluded the lower authorities had no justification for the addition.
Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 2,13,50,000 made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is deleted; appeal allowed in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
