https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459395 In an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, the Calcutta HC considered whether deletion of an addition under Section 68 relating to share capital and share premium, said to arise from a barter arrangement, warranted interference. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, but the Court found that no substantial question of law arose because the controversy was already covered by an earlier decision on identical facts in which the revenue's challenge had failed. The substantial question of law was therefore answered against the revenue, and the deletion of the Section 68 addition was upheld. en-us Mon, 19 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Dec 2024 18:57:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459395 In an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, the Calcutta HC considered whether deletion of an addition under Section 68 relating to share capital and share premium, said to arise from a barter arrangement, warranted interference. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, but the Court found that no substantial question of law arose because the controversy was already covered by an earlier decision on identical facts in which the revenue's challenge had failed. The substantial question of law was therefore answered against the revenue, and the deletion of the Section 68 addition was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 19 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459395