Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO under s.68 regarding share application money/premium received from non-resident investors. The Tribunal found the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity and creditworthiness of investors and transaction genuineness. Regarding trade payables, the ITAT determined s.68 was inapplicable as the disputed amounts represented outstanding liabilities for purchases rather than unexplained credits in the assessee's books. Following Kulwinder Singh, the Tribunal confirmed that s.68 provisions do not apply to amounts representing credit purchases. The Revenue's appeal was accordingly dismissed on both grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.