Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
ITAT upheld deletion of addition under section 68 regarding unexplained share application money and premium. Assessee established initial burden of proof through banking channel transactions. While AO confirmed service of section 133(6) notices to investor companies, subsequent doubts about company addresses based on IT Inspector's inquiry lacked specific inspection dates. AO failed to produce concrete evidence disproving transaction genuineness or demonstrating undisclosed income. Non-appearance of investor company directors alone insufficient to invalidate transactions. ITAT found CIT(A)'s deletion of addition justified as assessee satisfied section 68 requirements through proper documentation and banking records. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
ITAT upheld deletion of addition under section 68 regarding unexplained share application money and premium. Assessee established initial burden of proof through banking channel transactions. While AO confirmed service of section 133(6) notices to investor companies, subsequent doubts about company addresses based on IT Inspector's inquiry lacked specific inspection dates. AO failed to produce concrete evidence disproving transaction genuineness or demonstrating undisclosed income. Non-appearance of investor company directors alone insufficient to invalidate transactions. ITAT found CIT(A)'s deletion of addition justified as assessee satisfied section 68 requirements through proper documentation and banking records. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.