https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175780 The appellant successfully challenged the addition of share application money under section 68 of the IT Act as the Assessing Officer failed to establish the identity of the share applicants. The Commissioner held that the appellant provided sufficient evidence of the increase in share capital, shifting the onus to the Assessing Officer who could not prove any discrepancies. However, the issue of establishing the genuineness of transactions was remitted back to the Assessing Officer by the ITAT Delhi for further examination, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of documents and share issuance premiums. The Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:52:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175780 The appellant successfully challenged the addition of share application money under section 68 of the IT Act as the Assessing Officer failed to establish the identity of the share applicants. The Commissioner held that the appellant provided sufficient evidence of the increase in share capital, shifting the onus to the Assessing Officer who could not prove any discrepancies. However, the issue of establishing the genuineness of transactions was remitted back to the Assessing Officer by the ITAT Delhi for further examination, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of documents and share issuance premiums. The Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175780