<?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>2021 (2) TMI 23 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403531</link>
    <description>Share capital and share premium additions under section 68 are not sustained where the assessee produces incorporation records, financial statements, bank records and tax documents showing the share applicant&#039;s identity, creditworthiness and transaction trail. A group concern with substantial net worth, banking-channel remittance and valuation support based on financial results, net asset value and earnings per share were treated as sufficient to support the explanation. Non-appearance of directors in response to summons, by itself and especially on short notice, was held insufficient to draw an adverse inference when the relevant material was otherwise furnished. The deletion of the addition was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2021 07:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=634287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 23 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403531</link>
      <description>Share capital and share premium additions under section 68 are not sustained where the assessee produces incorporation records, financial statements, bank records and tax documents showing the share applicant&#039;s identity, creditworthiness and transaction trail. A group concern with substantial net worth, banking-channel remittance and valuation support based on financial results, net asset value and earnings per share were treated as sufficient to support the explanation. Non-appearance of directors in response to summons, by itself and especially on short notice, was held insufficient to draw an adverse inference when the relevant material was otherwise furnished. The deletion of the addition was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403531</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>