<?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>2019 (4) TMI 1297 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378853</link>
    <description>Section 68 addition on share capital and share premium was held unsustainable where the assessee furnished PAN, income-tax returns, audited financial statements, bank statements and confirmations for the share applicants, and the applicants complied with notices and summons. The directors of the subscriber companies also appeared and produced supporting material, while the cheques were issued through banking channels without immediate cash deposits. On these facts, identity, creditworthiness and genuineness were established, the onus shifted to the Assessing Officer, and the addition could not rest on suspicion or an unverified adverse inference. The addition was deleted and the assessee&#039;s challenge succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2019 14:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=567997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1297 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378853</link>
      <description>Section 68 addition on share capital and share premium was held unsustainable where the assessee furnished PAN, income-tax returns, audited financial statements, bank statements and confirmations for the share applicants, and the applicants complied with notices and summons. The directors of the subscriber companies also appeared and produced supporting material, while the cheques were issued through banking channels without immediate cash deposits. On these facts, identity, creditworthiness and genuineness were established, the onus shifted to the Assessing Officer, and the addition could not rest on suspicion or an unverified adverse inference. The addition was deleted and the assessee&#039;s challenge succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>