Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
