https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287245 Where an assessee produced confirmations, share application records, PAN details, audited statements, bank evidence and subscriber responses, the initial burden under section 68 was treated as discharged; the Revenue's failure to bring adverse material meant the share capital and share premium addition could not stand and was deleted. On commission expenditure, the assessee supported the claim with agreements, bills, ledger entries and banking evidence, while the Assessing Officer relied mainly on suspicion and an inspector's report without disproving the documents; the disallowance was therefore held unjustified and deleted. The Tribunal affirmed that primary evidence shifts the burden to the Revenue and that suspicion cannot replace proof. en-us Mon, 03 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2020 10:25:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287245 Where an assessee produced confirmations, share application records, PAN details, audited statements, bank evidence and subscriber responses, the initial burden under section 68 was treated as discharged; the Revenue's failure to bring adverse material meant the share capital and share premium addition could not stand and was deleted. On commission expenditure, the assessee supported the claim with agreements, bills, ledger entries and banking evidence, while the Assessing Officer relied mainly on suspicion and an inspector's report without disproving the documents; the disallowance was therefore held unjustified and deleted. The Tribunal affirmed that primary evidence shifts the burden to the Revenue and that suspicion cannot replace proof. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 03 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287245