https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780309 ITAT set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter to CIT(A) with directions to verify the share-subscriber companies and pass an appropriate order. The Tribunal upheld the AO's findings that additions under s.68 were justified because the assessee failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of subscriber companies: confirmations, PAN and bank details were inadequate, notices under ss.133(6)/131 were returned unserved, and those entities showed negligible income despite large investments. The assessee did not produce principal officers or new evidence before CIT(A). en-us Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780309 ITAT set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter to CIT(A) with directions to verify the share-subscriber companies and pass an appropriate order. The Tribunal upheld the AO's findings that additions under s.68 were justified because the assessee failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of subscriber companies: confirmations, PAN and bank details were inadequate, notices under ss.133(6)/131 were returned unserved, and those entities showed negligible income despite large investments. The assessee did not produce principal officers or new evidence before CIT(A). Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780309