https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782803 ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made u/s 68 on account of alleged bogus share capital/share premium. It held that the assessee had duly discharged the initial onus by furnishing complete evidentiary support, including identity, confirmations, and relevant financial details of the share subscribers, both before the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had mechanically upheld the AO's order through a cryptic reasoning. It was held that mere low income, meagre revenue, absence of substantial fixed assets, or high reserves/surplus of subscribers cannot, by itself, justify an adverse inference or sustain an addition u/s 68. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Dec 2025 09:19:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782803 ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made u/s 68 on account of alleged bogus share capital/share premium. It held that the assessee had duly discharged the initial onus by furnishing complete evidentiary support, including identity, confirmations, and relevant financial details of the share subscribers, both before the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had mechanically upheld the AO's order through a cryptic reasoning. It was held that mere low income, meagre revenue, absence of substantial fixed assets, or high reserves/surplus of subscribers cannot, by itself, justify an adverse inference or sustain an addition u/s 68. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782803