https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281277 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeals for both assessment years. The judgment emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and procedural diligence in applying Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) found that the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions, including bank statements, PAN cards, audited reports, and share application forms. The AO's reliance on third-party information without further inquiry was deemed insufficient to justify the additions under Section 68. en-us Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Jun 2019 19:33:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281277 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeals for both assessment years. The judgment emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and procedural diligence in applying Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) found that the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions, including bank statements, PAN cards, audited reports, and share application forms. The AO's reliance on third-party information without further inquiry was deemed insufficient to justify the additions under Section 68. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281277