<?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 (11) TMI 148 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387899</link>
    <description>Addition under s.68 for share capital/share premium turned on whether the assessee discharged the burden of proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. The Tribunal held the assessee filed adequate documentary evidence showing the funds were routed through entities without any cash deposits, and the AO made no meaningful enquiry or verification of the fund trail; the s.68 addition was deleted. Consequential addition under s.69C for alleged commission failed for want of any evidence of commission payment; it was deleted. Additions for alleged bogus purchases/suppressed profit depended on rejection of books and evidentiary support. Since audited books disclosed no defects, enquiries confirmed substantial transactions, and no incriminating material existed, estimation at 25% and partial rejection under s.145(3) were held unjustified; additions were deleted. Post-demonetisation bank cash deposit addition under s.68 was deleted as the revenue accepted the revised PMGKY disclosure and recorded no further material contradicting the retraction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=592871" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 148 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387899</link>
      <description>Addition under s.68 for share capital/share premium turned on whether the assessee discharged the burden of proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. The Tribunal held the assessee filed adequate documentary evidence showing the funds were routed through entities without any cash deposits, and the AO made no meaningful enquiry or verification of the fund trail; the s.68 addition was deleted. Consequential addition under s.69C for alleged commission failed for want of any evidence of commission payment; it was deleted. Additions for alleged bogus purchases/suppressed profit depended on rejection of books and evidentiary support. Since audited books disclosed no defects, enquiries confirmed substantial transactions, and no incriminating material existed, estimation at 25% and partial rejection under s.145(3) were held unjustified; additions were deleted. Post-demonetisation bank cash deposit addition under s.68 was deleted as the revenue accepted the revised PMGKY disclosure and recorded no further material contradicting the retraction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387899</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>