https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417383 Delhi HC ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple issues. Regarding Section 68 additions for share capital/share premium, the court held that since the assessee established money trail showing its own funds were routed back through banking channels, and the director retracted his statement within 48 hours, no addition was warranted. On bogus purchases, the court found books of accounts were rejected without proper examination, violating Section 145(3) requirements. For post-demonetization cash deposits, the Tribunal correctly concluded deposits matched cash sales with no evidence of backdating entries, and physical stock shortfall was incorrectly calculated as it excluded stock at Sonipat godown not covered during search. en-us Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:21:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417383 Delhi HC ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple issues. Regarding Section 68 additions for share capital/share premium, the court held that since the assessee established money trail showing its own funds were routed back through banking channels, and the director retracted his statement within 48 hours, no addition was warranted. On bogus purchases, the court found books of accounts were rejected without proper examination, violating Section 145(3) requirements. For post-demonetization cash deposits, the Tribunal correctly concluded deposits matched cash sales with no evidence of backdating entries, and physical stock shortfall was incorrectly calculated as it excluded stock at Sonipat godown not covered during search. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417383