https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448574 The Bombay HC upheld the Tribunal's decision favoring the assessee regarding Section 68 addition on FCCB proceeds. The AO had treated FCCB proceeds as deemed income, claiming the assessee failed to provide details of actual bondholders and ultimate beneficiaries. Following the precedent in Reliance Communication case, the Tribunal held that the assessee only needed to prove identity, capacity, and creditworthiness of the subscribing entity, not the actual subscribers. The HC confirmed this position, noting the revenue's appeal in Reliance Communication was dismissed by HC and SLP was also rejected. The addition under Section 68 was deemed incorrect. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jan 2024 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448574 The Bombay HC upheld the Tribunal's decision favoring the assessee regarding Section 68 addition on FCCB proceeds. The AO had treated FCCB proceeds as deemed income, claiming the assessee failed to provide details of actual bondholders and ultimate beneficiaries. Following the precedent in Reliance Communication case, the Tribunal held that the assessee only needed to prove identity, capacity, and creditworthiness of the subscribing entity, not the actual subscribers. The HC confirmed this position, noting the revenue's appeal in Reliance Communication was dismissed by HC and SLP was also rejected. The addition under Section 68 was deemed incorrect. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448574