https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772184 Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 was sustained because the assessments had accepted share application money and share premium without the enquiry required under section 68. The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders did not adequately examine the identity of the share applicants, their creditworthiness, or the genuineness of the transactions, and therefore were treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Commissioner's exercise of revision was upheld on the ground of inadequate investigation into the share capital receipts. en-us Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jun 2025 08:25:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772184 Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 was sustained because the assessments had accepted share application money and share premium without the enquiry required under section 68. The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders did not adequately examine the identity of the share applicants, their creditworthiness, or the genuineness of the transactions, and therefore were treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Commissioner's exercise of revision was upheld on the ground of inadequate investigation into the share capital receipts. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772184