https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755006 The HC upheld addition under Section 68 for share application money received from bogus shell companies. The assessee failed to discharge the initial onus of proving identity of creditors, their capacity to advance money, and genuineness of transactions. The court rejected the appellant's argument that since the original beneficiary was identified as another entity, they should not face tax liability. When notices were issued to the investing companies and they were found fake/non-existent, the appellant could not escape liability by claiming another party was the original beneficiary. The practice of converting unaccounted money through share capital/premium requires careful scrutiny, and the assessee's failure to establish the three essential requirements under Section 68 justified the addition. en-us Fri, 21 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jul 2025 15:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755006 The HC upheld addition under Section 68 for share application money received from bogus shell companies. The assessee failed to discharge the initial onus of proving identity of creditors, their capacity to advance money, and genuineness of transactions. The court rejected the appellant's argument that since the original beneficiary was identified as another entity, they should not face tax liability. When notices were issued to the investing companies and they were found fake/non-existent, the appellant could not escape liability by claiming another party was the original beneficiary. The practice of converting unaccounted money through share capital/premium requires careful scrutiny, and the assessee's failure to establish the three essential requirements under Section 68 justified the addition. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755006