<?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 (6) TMI 1269 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362442</link>
    <description>Share capital and share premium additions under section 68 were found unsustainable where the assessee produced PAN details, return acknowledgments, audited accounts, share application forms, allotment letters, bank statements and confirmations for the shareholders. Payments were made through account payee cheques, the bank records showed no cash deposits before remittance, and material was placed to show the source of the subscribers&#039; funds. The assessee therefore discharged the initial burden on identity, creditworthiness and genuineness; the onus shifted to the Revenue. Mere non-appearance of some directors or shareholders, without effective contrary enquiry from their assessing officers, was insufficient to justify the addition, and the deletion was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524825" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1269 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362442</link>
      <description>Share capital and share premium additions under section 68 were found unsustainable where the assessee produced PAN details, return acknowledgments, audited accounts, share application forms, allotment letters, bank statements and confirmations for the shareholders. Payments were made through account payee cheques, the bank records showed no cash deposits before remittance, and material was placed to show the source of the subscribers&#039; funds. The assessee therefore discharged the initial burden on identity, creditworthiness and genuineness; the onus shifted to the Revenue. Mere non-appearance of some directors or shareholders, without effective contrary enquiry from their assessing officers, was insufficient to justify the addition, and the deletion was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>