<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (6) TMI 36 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10959</link>
    <description>Share application money may be treated as unexplained income where the assessee fails to establish the subscribers&#039; identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with reliable evidence. The court noted that the alleged subscribers were rural potato growers with negligible land and no substantive non-agricultural income, their bank accounts were opened on the same day, funds were moved through serially numbered drafts, and no share certificates or dependable supporting documents were produced. Form No. 4A and nominal tax payment did not prove creditworthiness. On these facts, the addition under section 68 was upheld because the explanation for the credits was not satisfactorily shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 36 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10959</link>
      <description>Share application money may be treated as unexplained income where the assessee fails to establish the subscribers&#039; identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with reliable evidence. The court noted that the alleged subscribers were rural potato growers with negligible land and no substantive non-agricultural income, their bank accounts were opened on the same day, funds were moved through serially numbered drafts, and no share certificates or dependable supporting documents were produced. Form No. 4A and nominal tax payment did not prove creditworthiness. On these facts, the addition under section 68 was upheld because the explanation for the credits was not satisfactorily shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>