<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (3) TMI 1477 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788722</link>
    <description>Share application money and share premium were held to be duly explained where the assessee produced PAN, returns, bank statements, confirmations, application forms, allotment records and balance sheets. The investor&#039;s identity was not disputed, and notices and summons issued to the investor and its director were complied with. In the absence of any specific material showing a cash trail, unexplained circulation of funds, or link between the assessee and any undisclosed money, investigation material alone was insufficient to dislodge the documentary evidence. The premium was also treated as commercially justified on the facts, and the addition under section 68 was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1477 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788722</link>
      <description>Share application money and share premium were held to be duly explained where the assessee produced PAN, returns, bank statements, confirmations, application forms, allotment records and balance sheets. The investor&#039;s identity was not disputed, and notices and summons issued to the investor and its director were complied with. In the absence of any specific material showing a cash trail, unexplained circulation of funds, or link between the assessee and any undisclosed money, investigation material alone was insufficient to dislodge the documentary evidence. The premium was also treated as commercially justified on the facts, and the addition under section 68 was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>