https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462319 ITAT Bangalore held that additions under Section 68 treating non-resident investments as unexplained cash credits were unjustified. The assessee provided adequate documentation including banking channel receipts, FIRC certificates, and RBI intimations proving identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the non-resident investor. The tribunal ruled that provisions of Section 68 cannot enlarge the scope of Section 5(2) regarding taxability of non-resident income. The proviso to Section 68 requiring proof of "source of source" applies only to resident shareholders, not non-residents. Revenue's appeals were dismissed. en-us Fri, 28 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jun 2025 18:57:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462319 ITAT Bangalore held that additions under Section 68 treating non-resident investments as unexplained cash credits were unjustified. The assessee provided adequate documentation including banking channel receipts, FIRC certificates, and RBI intimations proving identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the non-resident investor. The tribunal ruled that provisions of Section 68 cannot enlarge the scope of Section 5(2) regarding taxability of non-resident income. The proviso to Section 68 requiring proof of "source of source" applies only to resident shareholders, not non-residents. Revenue's appeals were dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462319