https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780634 Section 68 was examined in relation to alleged bogus share capital and share premium where the AO doubted shareholder identity after directors failed to appear. The court accepted that the assessing officer may rely on his subjective satisfaction but held that concurrent findings by the appellate authority and ITAT that shareholders were identified and sources of funds verified defeat an addition. The second proviso addressing share application money was the relevant limb; contemporaneous disclosure to corporate registry and independent verification supported genuineness. Non appearance of directors did not negate the explanation, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Feb 2026 13:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780634 Section 68 was examined in relation to alleged bogus share capital and share premium where the AO doubted shareholder identity after directors failed to appear. The court accepted that the assessing officer may rely on his subjective satisfaction but held that concurrent findings by the appellate authority and ITAT that shareholders were identified and sources of funds verified defeat an addition. The second proviso addressing share application money was the relevant limb; contemporaneous disclosure to corporate registry and independent verification supported genuineness. Non appearance of directors did not negate the explanation, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780634