https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370602 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and ruling in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant had proven the genuineness of share application money transactions by providing evidence of investor payments and source of income, shifting the burden of proof to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper verification and documentation in such cases, stating that suspicion alone is insufficient to disallow share application money. The AO's failure to conduct thorough inquiries led to the reversal of the CIT(A)'s decision. en-us Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:49:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370602 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and ruling in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant had proven the genuineness of share application money transactions by providing evidence of investor payments and source of income, shifting the burden of proof to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper verification and documentation in such cases, stating that suspicion alone is insufficient to disallow share application money. The AO's failure to conduct thorough inquiries led to the reversal of the CIT(A)'s decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370602