https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759206 In an appeal concerning addition under s. 68 for receipt of share capital and share premium, the Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity of the share applicants, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions. Mere production of paper documentation was treated as self-serving and insufficient, particularly where investments were made in a newly formed company lacking business history or a plausible business model, and shares of nominal face value were issued at an unjustified high premium. Treating the arrangement as a dubious smokescreen, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the AO and CIT(A) and confirmed the addition as unexplained cash credits, dismissing the appeal. en-us Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 13:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759206 In an appeal concerning addition under s. 68 for receipt of share capital and share premium, the Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity of the share applicants, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions. Mere production of paper documentation was treated as self-serving and insufficient, particularly where investments were made in a newly formed company lacking business history or a plausible business model, and shares of nominal face value were issued at an unjustified high premium. Treating the arrangement as a dubious smokescreen, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the AO and CIT(A) and confirmed the addition as unexplained cash credits, dismissing the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759206