https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22311 DELHI HC held the Commissioner's invocation of s.263 unjustified; even if some subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, the increased share capital could not be treated as the company's undisclosed income. The Tribunal was correct that the AO's assessment could not be set aside on that basis, and reopening assessment of the purported true contributors would be the proper route. No substantial question of law arose, and the petition was dismissed. en-us Tue, 16 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Oct 2025 12:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22311 DELHI HC held the Commissioner's invocation of s.263 unjustified; even if some subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, the increased share capital could not be treated as the company's undisclosed income. The Tribunal was correct that the AO's assessment could not be set aside on that basis, and reopening assessment of the purported true contributors would be the proper route. No substantial question of law arose, and the petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22311