https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459422 ITAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, deleting additions under section 68 for unexplained share application money and share premium. The tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence proving identity, creditworthiness of investors, and genuineness of transactions including PAN details, financial statements, and bank records. The AO failed to examine these documents. Following precedents from SC in Orissa Corporation and HC decisions, the tribunal held that section 68 cannot be invoked when proper documentation establishes the transaction's authenticity, regardless of non-appearance of parties before authorities. en-us Mon, 12 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:59:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459422 ITAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, deleting additions under section 68 for unexplained share application money and share premium. The tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence proving identity, creditworthiness of investors, and genuineness of transactions including PAN details, financial statements, and bank records. The AO failed to examine these documents. Following precedents from SC in Orissa Corporation and HC decisions, the tribunal held that section 68 cannot be invoked when proper documentation establishes the transaction's authenticity, regardless of non-appearance of parties before authorities. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 12 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459422