<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (10) TMI 237 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203449</link>
    <description>Share application money cannot be taxed under section 68 where the assessee furnishes the subscribers&#039; names, addresses, affidavits and other identity and source-related particulars, and the Revenue produces no effective rebuttal. Once the identity of the subscribers and the source of the credits are shown, the burden shifts to the Revenue to establish that the applicants are bogus or that the money ly belonged to the assessee. As the affidavits were not tested by cross-examination or contradicted by material evidence, the Tribunal&#039;s deletion of the addition was upheld and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 17:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 237 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203449</link>
      <description>Share application money cannot be taxed under section 68 where the assessee furnishes the subscribers&#039; names, addresses, affidavits and other identity and source-related particulars, and the Revenue produces no effective rebuttal. Once the identity of the subscribers and the source of the credits are shown, the burden shifts to the Revenue to establish that the applicants are bogus or that the money ly belonged to the assessee. As the affidavits were not tested by cross-examination or contradicted by material evidence, the Tribunal&#039;s deletion of the addition was upheld and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>