https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448668 The ITAT Delhi dismissed the revenue's appeal challenging CIT(A)'s deletion of addition under section 68. The AO had questioned the source of source of investors in the assessee company, alleging lack of creditworthiness and genuineness of parties who provided loans to share subscribers. The tribunal held that mere control of a family in companies dealing with alleged penny stocks cannot justify questioning the source without direct or circumstantial evidence. The CIT(A) properly considered investor identity, bank statements, and financial details. Without evidence of cash deposits suggesting the assessee's own money was routed back, the AO erred in applying improbability principles to treat genuine transactions as artificial. en-us Thu, 04 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jan 2024 11:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448668 The ITAT Delhi dismissed the revenue's appeal challenging CIT(A)'s deletion of addition under section 68. The AO had questioned the source of source of investors in the assessee company, alleging lack of creditworthiness and genuineness of parties who provided loans to share subscribers. The tribunal held that mere control of a family in companies dealing with alleged penny stocks cannot justify questioning the source without direct or circumstantial evidence. The CIT(A) properly considered investor identity, bank statements, and financial details. Without evidence of cash deposits suggesting the assessee's own money was routed back, the AO erred in applying improbability principles to treat genuine transactions as artificial. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448668