<?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>2018 (4) TMI 380 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358269</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and affirmed the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition made by the AO towards share application money under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proven the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants, and concluded that the AO&#039;s addition lacked concrete evidence and was based on suspicion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2018 08:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516331" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 380 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358269</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and affirmed the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition made by the AO towards share application money under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proven the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants, and concluded that the AO&#039;s addition lacked concrete evidence and was based on suspicion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358269</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>