<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (2) TMI 1135 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766588</link>
    <description>Share application money and share premium could not be treated as unexplained cash credit where the assessee produced share application forms, income-tax returns, audited financial statements, PAN details, allotment receipts, bank statements and assessment records of the subscribers. Those materials established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, and the lower authorities identified no specific defect or meaningful basis to dislodge that evidence. Once the primary burden was discharged, the onus shifted to the Revenue to conduct proper verification, and an addition under section 68 could not be sustained on suspicion, lack of personal appearance of directors, or mere absence of further enquiry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2025 08:23:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=802475" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1135 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766588</link>
      <description>Share application money and share premium could not be treated as unexplained cash credit where the assessee produced share application forms, income-tax returns, audited financial statements, PAN details, allotment receipts, bank statements and assessment records of the subscribers. Those materials established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, and the lower authorities identified no specific defect or meaningful basis to dislodge that evidence. Once the primary burden was discharged, the onus shifted to the Revenue to conduct proper verification, and an addition under section 68 could not be sustained on suspicion, lack of personal appearance of directors, or mere absence of further enquiry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>