https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375360 The Tribunal held that the assessment order by the Assessing Officer (AO) was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue's interest. The AO had properly verified the share premium and investments, accepting the explanations provided by the assessee. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of proving investor identity and genuineness. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's challenge under section 263 was set aside, restoring the AO's assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Feb 2019 06:37:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375360 The Tribunal held that the assessment order by the Assessing Officer (AO) was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue's interest. The AO had properly verified the share premium and investments, accepting the explanations provided by the assessee. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of proving investor identity and genuineness. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's challenge under section 263 was set aside, restoring the AO's assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375360