<?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 (12) TMI 344 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401545</link>
    <description>Share capital and share premium received from a non-resident investor were held not to be unexplained credits under section 68 because the assessee produced incorporation documents, tax residency certificate, bank statement, foreign inward remittance certificate, RBI filings, valuation material and the investor&#039;s financial statements. Exchange-of-information material from Mauritius also supported the investor&#039;s identity, creditworthiness, corporate structure and investment activity. On this record, the genuineness of the transaction was established, and section 56(2)(viib) was held inapplicable to the remittance from a non-resident. The addition under section 68 was therefore deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:23:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=629882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 344 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401545</link>
      <description>Share capital and share premium received from a non-resident investor were held not to be unexplained credits under section 68 because the assessee produced incorporation documents, tax residency certificate, bank statement, foreign inward remittance certificate, RBI filings, valuation material and the investor&#039;s financial statements. Exchange-of-information material from Mauritius also supported the investor&#039;s identity, creditworthiness, corporate structure and investment activity. On this record, the genuineness of the transaction was established, and section 56(2)(viib) was held inapplicable to the remittance from a non-resident. The addition under section 68 was therefore deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>