https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243534 The HC held that the assessee failed to discharge the initial burden of proof under the Act, as investors did not confirm investments and reported income significantly lower than invested amounts. Merely disclosing addresses was insufficient, and the inability of investors to explain the source of funds supported the Revenue's case. The assessee's incorporation shortly before the assessment year and the unexplained substantial share premium markup further undermined its position. The deletion under section 68 was therefore not justified. The decision was partly in favour of the Revenue. en-us Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jul 2025 17:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243534 The HC held that the assessee failed to discharge the initial burden of proof under the Act, as investors did not confirm investments and reported income significantly lower than invested amounts. Merely disclosing addresses was insufficient, and the inability of investors to explain the source of funds supported the Revenue's case. The assessee's incorporation shortly before the assessment year and the unexplained substantial share premium markup further undermined its position. The deletion under section 68 was therefore not justified. The decision was partly in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243534