https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775105 In an appeal under Section 260A, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose from deletion of the Section 68 addition relating to share capital and share premium. The Tribunal had relied on the factual findings of the CIT(A), based on appraisal of documents produced by the assessee and its group companies, and independently re-examined the material before affirming that the ingredients for a Section 68 addition were not established. As the controversy turned on factual appreciation rather than any unsettled legal principle, the challenge to the deletion failed. en-us Fri, 08 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jul 2025 08:25:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775105 In an appeal under Section 260A, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose from deletion of the Section 68 addition relating to share capital and share premium. The Tribunal had relied on the factual findings of the CIT(A), based on appraisal of documents produced by the assessee and its group companies, and independently re-examined the material before affirming that the ingredients for a Section 68 addition were not established. As the controversy turned on factual appreciation rather than any unsettled legal principle, the challenge to the deletion failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775105