https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345625 The dominant issue was whether share capital and loan receipts could be added under s. 68 for failure to prove identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The HC held that the first appellate authority had undertaken an elaborate verification, sought remand comments from the AO, and recorded detailed reasons finding that the assessee discharged its onus for both investors and lenders; the Tribunal concurred on the same factual appreciation. As the revenue failed to demonstrate perversity in these concurrent findings, no substantial question warranting interference arose, and the addition under s. 68 was set aside, with the appeal decided in favour of the assessee. en-us Sat, 07 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345625 The dominant issue was whether share capital and loan receipts could be added under s. 68 for failure to prove identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The HC held that the first appellate authority had undertaken an elaborate verification, sought remand comments from the AO, and recorded detailed reasons finding that the assessee discharged its onus for both investors and lenders; the Tribunal concurred on the same factual appreciation. As the revenue failed to demonstrate perversity in these concurrent findings, no substantial question warranting interference arose, and the addition under s. 68 was set aside, with the appeal decided in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 07 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345625