https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385857 In a share capital and share premium case, the Tribunal held that addition under section 68 could not be sustained where the assessee produced confirmations, bank statements, audited financials, income-tax records, allotment documents and PAN details of the share applicants, and the notices under section 133(6) were duly served and replied to. These materials established the identity of the investors, the genuineness of the receipts and their creditworthiness, so the primary onus stood discharged. The Assessing Officer could not maintain the addition merely because the directors or shareholders were not produced personally, and any further inquiry into the source of the investors' funds had to be pursued in accordance with law. The deletion of the addition was upheld. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Sep 2019 11:12:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385857 In a share capital and share premium case, the Tribunal held that addition under section 68 could not be sustained where the assessee produced confirmations, bank statements, audited financials, income-tax records, allotment documents and PAN details of the share applicants, and the notices under section 133(6) were duly served and replied to. These materials established the identity of the investors, the genuineness of the receipts and their creditworthiness, so the primary onus stood discharged. The Assessing Officer could not maintain the addition merely because the directors or shareholders were not produced personally, and any further inquiry into the source of the investors' funds had to be pursued in accordance with law. The deletion of the addition was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385857