https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10966 The High Court dismissed the application for review, citing that its jurisdiction under section 256 of the Income-tax Act is limited to obtaining the court's opinion on a question of law and does not extend to reviewing its own orders. The court rejected the argument that section 68 does not apply to share capital, emphasizing that if share capital lacks identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, it falls under cash credits. The non-requirement of PAN for transactions below Rs. 20,000 does not absolve the burden of proving creditworthiness under section 68. Circulars issued by the Union of India are binding on the Department but not on courts. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10966 The High Court dismissed the application for review, citing that its jurisdiction under section 256 of the Income-tax Act is limited to obtaining the court's opinion on a question of law and does not extend to reviewing its own orders. The court rejected the argument that section 68 does not apply to share capital, emphasizing that if share capital lacks identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, it falls under cash credits. The non-requirement of PAN for transactions below Rs. 20,000 does not absolve the burden of proving creditworthiness under section 68. Circulars issued by the Union of India are binding on the Department but not on courts. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10966