https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190769 The dispute revolved around the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT reversed the Assessing Officer's decision to add Rs. 1,85,55,000 as undisclosed income, a ruling upheld by the I.T.A.T. The I.T.A.T emphasized that the company did not purchase the shares in question and that if purchased by an individual, the addition should have been made in that individual's hands. The Tribunal referred to precedent and stated that share application money from alleged bogus shareholders does not constitute undisclosed income for the company. The appeal was dismissed as no legal question arose beyond this issue. en-us Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Feb 2017 12:26:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190769 The dispute revolved around the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT reversed the Assessing Officer's decision to add Rs. 1,85,55,000 as undisclosed income, a ruling upheld by the I.T.A.T. The I.T.A.T emphasized that the company did not purchase the shares in question and that if purchased by an individual, the addition should have been made in that individual's hands. The Tribunal referred to precedent and stated that share application money from alleged bogus shareholders does not constitute undisclosed income for the company. The appeal was dismissed as no legal question arose beyond this issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190769