<?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>2020 (2) TMI 1215 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392771</link>
    <description>Share application money received in cash was held not assessable under section 68 where the assessee produced PAN details, returns, bank statements, balance sheets, share application forms, allotment letters and confirmations for all applicants. The applicants also responded to notices under section 133(6) and confirmed the investments. On those records, the identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions were treated as established, so the initial onus under section 68 stood discharged. The addition could not be sustained merely because the cash source in the hands of the applicants was not further explained, especially without effective enquiry to rebut the documentary evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2020 10:41:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=605342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1215 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392771</link>
      <description>Share application money received in cash was held not assessable under section 68 where the assessee produced PAN details, returns, bank statements, balance sheets, share application forms, allotment letters and confirmations for all applicants. The applicants also responded to notices under section 133(6) and confirmed the investments. On those records, the identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions were treated as established, so the initial onus under section 68 stood discharged. The addition could not be sustained merely because the cash source in the hands of the applicants was not further explained, especially without effective enquiry to rebut the documentary evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392771</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>