https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776119 The HC upheld the addition under section 68, treating the share capital with premium as unexplained cash credit. It applied the doctrine of "origin of origin" to conclude that the funds were routed through the corporate veil to conceal undisclosed income. The assessing officer and appellate authority rightly found the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Despite partial identification of investors, the financial analysis showed the investing companies had nil income, undermining the explanation. The tribunal erred in reversing these findings. The revenue appeal was allowed, affirming the addition. en-us Fri, 01 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:54:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776119 The HC upheld the addition under section 68, treating the share capital with premium as unexplained cash credit. It applied the doctrine of "origin of origin" to conclude that the funds were routed through the corporate veil to conceal undisclosed income. The assessing officer and appellate authority rightly found the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Despite partial identification of investors, the financial analysis showed the investing companies had nil income, undermining the explanation. The tribunal erred in reversing these findings. The revenue appeal was allowed, affirming the addition. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 01 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776119