https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766649 The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit disguised as share application money/premium. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition. The tribunal held that since transactions occurred through banking channels, genuineness couldn't be doubted. The assessee established initial onus under Section 68, requiring the AO to bring controverting material. The AO failed to provide adequate evidence despite issuing notices under Section 133(6) and conducting enquiries. The tribunal noted inconsistencies in the AO's findings and lack of proper documentation regarding inspection reports. Following established precedent, mere non-production of share applicant directors doesn't invalidate transaction genuineness. en-us Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Mar 2025 08:25:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766649 The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit disguised as share application money/premium. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition. The tribunal held that since transactions occurred through banking channels, genuineness couldn't be doubted. The assessee established initial onus under Section 68, requiring the AO to bring controverting material. The AO failed to provide adequate evidence despite issuing notices under Section 133(6) and conducting enquiries. The tribunal noted inconsistencies in the AO's findings and lack of proper documentation regarding inspection reports. Following established precedent, mere non-production of share applicant directors doesn't invalidate transaction genuineness. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766649