<?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>Addition u/s 68 was deleted for share capital from dummy entities. Assessee part of RPS Group. Source accepted after scrutiny.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78247</link>
    <description>The ITAT ruled on the addition u/s 68 of share capital/premium from three dummy entities related to RPS Group. The addition was substantive for RPS Group and protective for the assessee, a group company. The Tribunal considered assessment orders of the entities investing in the assessee, finding their sources acceptable. The Tribunal held that the assessee met the burden u/s 68, as the investing entities&#039; assessments were accepted, supporting the legitimacy of the investments. The decision favored the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2024 08:13:27 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2024 08:13:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755620" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Addition u/s 68 was deleted for share capital from dummy entities. Assessee part of RPS Group. Source accepted after scrutiny.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78247</link>
      <description>The ITAT ruled on the addition u/s 68 of share capital/premium from three dummy entities related to RPS Group. The addition was substantive for RPS Group and protective for the assessee, a group company. The Tribunal considered assessment orders of the entities investing in the assessee, finding their sources acceptable. The Tribunal held that the assessee met the burden u/s 68, as the investing entities&#039; assessments were accepted, supporting the legitimacy of the investments. The decision favored the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s findings.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2024 08:13:27 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>