https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326739 The Department's appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), ruling in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to prove the genuineness of the transactions and had discharged its burden of proof. The AO's failure to verify these details and provide contrary evidence led to the dismissal of the Department's appeal, with the share capital of Rs. 24,00,000 being deemed explained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. en-us Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Apr 2016 10:54:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326739 The Department's appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), ruling in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to prove the genuineness of the transactions and had discharged its burden of proof. The AO's failure to verify these details and provide contrary evidence led to the dismissal of the Department's appeal, with the share capital of Rs. 24,00,000 being deemed explained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326739