https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782861 ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and directing deletion of the addition made u/s 68 on account of share capital and share premium. The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly discharged the onus under s.68 by furnishing documentary evidence establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the investor entities and the genuineness of the impugned share transactions. The AO neither identified any defect in such evidences nor conducted further enquiry, and had made the addition solely because summons issued u/s 131 were not complied with by the investors. ITAT ruled that mere non-compliance of summons by investors, in the face of adequate documentary support on record, cannot justify treating the share capital/premium as unexplained cash credit in the assessee's books. en-us Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Dec 2025 10:53:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782861 ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and directing deletion of the addition made u/s 68 on account of share capital and share premium. The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly discharged the onus under s.68 by furnishing documentary evidence establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the investor entities and the genuineness of the impugned share transactions. The AO neither identified any defect in such evidences nor conducted further enquiry, and had made the addition solely because summons issued u/s 131 were not complied with by the investors. ITAT ruled that mere non-compliance of summons by investors, in the face of adequate documentary support on record, cannot justify treating the share capital/premium as unexplained cash credit in the assessee's books. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782861