https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366678 ITAT Kolkata held that a section 68 addition for share capital and share premium could not survive where the assessee produced investor particulars, income-tax returns, incorporation records, bank statements, audited financials, allotment letters and confirmations, and most section 133(6) notices were answered; these materials established identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, and any further enquiry into the investors' source of funds had to be pursued by the Revenue. It also upheld deletion of the section 14A disallowance because no exempt income was earned during the year, so Rule 8D(2) could not be applied. The Revenue's appeal failed on both issues. en-us Wed, 05 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Sep 2018 13:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366678 ITAT Kolkata held that a section 68 addition for share capital and share premium could not survive where the assessee produced investor particulars, income-tax returns, incorporation records, bank statements, audited financials, allotment letters and confirmations, and most section 133(6) notices were answered; these materials established identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, and any further enquiry into the investors' source of funds had to be pursued by the Revenue. It also upheld deletion of the section 14A disallowance because no exempt income was earned during the year, so Rule 8D(2) could not be applied. The Revenue's appeal failed on both issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 05 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366678