<?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>Tax Tribunal Upholds Share Premium Validity: Genuine Transaction Confirmed, No Sham Detected in Valuation Dispute.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=72861</link>
    <description>Addition u/s 68 - assessee’s alleged failure to explain as to why the subject shares which had a face value of Rs. 10/- were issued at a premium of Rs. 90/- per share - total value of per share was Rs. 100 which was well below the value arrived at as per the valuation report. - CIT(A) correctly observed that it was not a sham transaction - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2023 09:17:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2023 09:17:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=731059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tax Tribunal Upholds Share Premium Validity: Genuine Transaction Confirmed, No Sham Detected in Valuation Dispute.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=72861</link>
      <description>Addition u/s 68 - assessee’s alleged failure to explain as to why the subject shares which had a face value of Rs. 10/- were issued at a premium of Rs. 90/- per share - total value of per share was Rs. 100 which was well below the value arrived at as per the valuation report. - CIT(A) correctly observed that it was not a sham transaction - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2023 09:17:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=72861</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>