<?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 (5) TMI 834 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770562</link>
    <description>The Calcutta HC upheld ITAT&#039;s decision deleting addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit. The case involved share subscribers whose identity and creditworthiness were questioned by revenue authorities. The CIT(A) conducted detailed examination including two remand reports, finding the assessee company showed good returns with earnings per share growing from 2.5 times to 16% on Rs. 10 shares, demonstrating it was a profitable growing company. The tribunal re-examined factual aspects with complete documentation and concluded CIT(A) was justified in deleting the Section 68 addition, rejecting revenue&#039;s contention about unduly high premium charges.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 09:17:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=821287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 834 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770562</link>
      <description>The Calcutta HC upheld ITAT&#039;s decision deleting addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit. The case involved share subscribers whose identity and creditworthiness were questioned by revenue authorities. The CIT(A) conducted detailed examination including two remand reports, finding the assessee company showed good returns with earnings per share growing from 2.5 times to 16% on Rs. 10 shares, demonstrating it was a profitable growing company. The tribunal re-examined factual aspects with complete documentation and concluded CIT(A) was justified in deleting the Section 68 addition, rejecting revenue&#039;s contention about unduly high premium charges.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>