https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332072 The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing the importance of disclosing the share applicant's identity and funds' source to establish the genuineness of transactions. The Court found that the AO's failure to provide conclusive evidence did not justify treating the share application money as undisclosed income under Section 68. The judgment highlights the significance of meeting the initial burden of proof and the principle applicable to Section 68 in cases involving suspect investments and share application money. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law was raised. en-us Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 11 Sep 2016 16:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332072 The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing the importance of disclosing the share applicant's identity and funds' source to establish the genuineness of transactions. The Court found that the AO's failure to provide conclusive evidence did not justify treating the share application money as undisclosed income under Section 68. The judgment highlights the significance of meeting the initial burden of proof and the principle applicable to Section 68 in cases involving suspect investments and share application money. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law was raised. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332072