https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10958 In an appeal under s.260A, the dominant issue was whether deletion of additions for unexplained share application money/unsecured credits could be interfered with as giving rise to a substantial question of law. The HC held that, applying SC precedent, once the assessee established the existence/identity of most investor-companies and individual investors and produced confirmations, the initial onus under s.68 stood discharged; in the absence of further enquiry by the AO to test the genuineness of the material, the amounts could not be treated as unexplained cash credits. As the Tribunal's conclusions were factual, evidence-based, and not shown to be perverse or legally vitiated, no substantial question of law arose and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 01 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 12:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10958 In an appeal under s.260A, the dominant issue was whether deletion of additions for unexplained share application money/unsecured credits could be interfered with as giving rise to a substantial question of law. The HC held that, applying SC precedent, once the assessee established the existence/identity of most investor-companies and individual investors and produced confirmations, the initial onus under s.68 stood discharged; in the absence of further enquiry by the AO to test the genuineness of the material, the amounts could not be treated as unexplained cash credits. As the Tribunal's conclusions were factual, evidence-based, and not shown to be perverse or legally vitiated, no substantial question of law arose and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 01 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10958