https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444960 The ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made under section 68 regarding unexplained share premium. The tribunal held that where share applicants responded to notices under section 133(6) and the assessee filed documentary evidence explaining the nature and source of share premium, the AO failed to identify any discrepancies. Following precedent in Mahalakshmi Vinimay case, the tribunal ruled that adverse inference could only be drawn if the AO pointed out specific discrepancies or insufficiencies in evidence. The burden shifted to revenue to establish their case once documentary evidence of subscriber companies' existence was produced. en-us Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:45:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444960 The ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made under section 68 regarding unexplained share premium. The tribunal held that where share applicants responded to notices under section 133(6) and the assessee filed documentary evidence explaining the nature and source of share premium, the AO failed to identify any discrepancies. Following precedent in Mahalakshmi Vinimay case, the tribunal ruled that adverse inference could only be drawn if the AO pointed out specific discrepancies or insufficiencies in evidence. The burden shifted to revenue to establish their case once documentary evidence of subscriber companies' existence was produced. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444960