https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35248 HC held that Section 41(1) and its explanation were inapplicable because the alleged liability remained shown in the assessee's books and had not been written off, so it could not be treated as income. The HC also reversed the addition of Rs.15,00,000 as unexplained share capital, finding that the assessee had produced a list of allottee names, addresses and share counts; non-response by some persons to random inquiries under section 133(6) did not establish the transactions as ingenuine. en-us Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 May 2026 10:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35248 HC held that Section 41(1) and its explanation were inapplicable because the alleged liability remained shown in the assessee's books and had not been written off, so it could not be treated as income. The HC also reversed the addition of Rs.15,00,000 as unexplained share capital, finding that the assessee had produced a list of allottee names, addresses and share counts; non-response by some persons to random inquiries under section 133(6) did not establish the transactions as ingenuine. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35248