Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
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 
