Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Addition u/s 68 - Bogus share capital and share premium received. The assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber companies and the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee could not justify the huge premium charged nor establish the creditworthiness of the share applicants/shareholders. Most applicants lacked regular income sources or strong financials to justify the investment with huge premium. The assessee did not carry out any valuation to justify the premium charged. The transactions relating to share issuance were not genuine, and the creditworthiness of the creditors was not established. Based on judicial precedents and the CIT(A)'s findings that the applicants were shell companies, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order treating the addition u/s 68 as valid.
Addition u/s 68 - Bogus share capital and share premium received. The assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber companies and the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee could not justify the huge premium charged nor establish the creditworthiness of the share applicants/shareholders. Most applicants lacked regular income sources or strong financials to justify the investment with huge premium. The assessee did not carry out any valuation to justify the premium charged. The transactions relating to share issuance were not genuine, and the creditworthiness of the creditors was not established. Based on judicial precedents and the CIT(A)'s findings that the applicants were shell companies, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order treating the addition u/s 68 as valid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
