https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465364 The dominant issue was whether share application/share premium receipts could be added as unexplained cash credits under s.68 on the allegation that the investors were accommodation entry providers. The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the onus by furnishing investor identity and tax particulars, including ITRs and balance sheets, and the investors' existence and assessment to tax were undisputed; share capital receipts are not inherently suspect. As the AO made no independent verification under ss.131/133(6) and relied only on a third-party statement, no adverse inference was justified, consistent with SC principles. The deletion of the s.68 addition was upheld and the appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2025 14:12:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465364 The dominant issue was whether share application/share premium receipts could be added as unexplained cash credits under s.68 on the allegation that the investors were accommodation entry providers. The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the onus by furnishing investor identity and tax particulars, including ITRs and balance sheets, and the investors' existence and assessment to tax were undisputed; share capital receipts are not inherently suspect. As the AO made no independent verification under ss.131/133(6) and relied only on a third-party statement, no adverse inference was justified, consistent with SC principles. The deletion of the s.68 addition was upheld and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465364