https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755737 ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal against addition u/s 68 for bogus share capital and share premium. The tribunal held that even if share subscribers were not genuine, share capital cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee company. CIT(A) erroneously confused share capital raising with long-term capital gains, showing complete non-application of mind. Following Delhi HC precedent in Steller Investment case, ITAT directed AO to delete the addition, noting that elaborate documentation supported genuineness of share transactions. en-us Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jul 2024 06:54:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755737 ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal against addition u/s 68 for bogus share capital and share premium. The tribunal held that even if share subscribers were not genuine, share capital cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee company. CIT(A) erroneously confused share capital raising with long-term capital gains, showing complete non-application of mind. Following Delhi HC precedent in Steller Investment case, ITAT directed AO to delete the addition, noting that elaborate documentation supported genuineness of share transactions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755737