<?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>2025 (9) TMI 1821 - ITAT JABALPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469795</link>
    <description>Deletion of the section 68 addition for alleged unexplained cash credit from share transactions was upheld because the assessee produced supporting material showing the genuineness of the transaction, identity and creditworthiness. The addition rested mainly on an Investigation Wing report and the alleged non-production of Form 10DB, but the appellate authority accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation and found that the Revenue had not brought sufficient material to rebut it. The Tribunal found no infirmity in that approach and held that the assessee had discharged the onus regarding the source and nature of the amount received, so the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2026 19:00:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909917" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1821 - ITAT JABALPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469795</link>
      <description>Deletion of the section 68 addition for alleged unexplained cash credit from share transactions was upheld because the assessee produced supporting material showing the genuineness of the transaction, identity and creditworthiness. The addition rested mainly on an Investigation Wing report and the alleged non-production of Form 10DB, but the appellate authority accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation and found that the Revenue had not brought sufficient material to rebut it. The Tribunal found no infirmity in that approach and held that the assessee had discharged the onus regarding the source and nature of the amount received, so the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>