<?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 (3) TMI 1964 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470056</link>
    <description>Share capital and share premium additions under Section 68 were unsustainable where the assessee established investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness through PAN details, income-tax returns, bank statements, confirmations and investor balance sheets. All investments were received through banking channels, and the investor companies independently supplied information in response to Section 133(6) notices, with bank records showing sufficient funds. Directors&#039; failure to appear personally before the Assessing Officer, despite requesting appearance before an officer at Kolkata, did not by itself discredit the transactions or justify an adverse inference. The addition was therefore deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 19:02:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1964 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470056</link>
      <description>Share capital and share premium additions under Section 68 were unsustainable where the assessee established investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness through PAN details, income-tax returns, bank statements, confirmations and investor balance sheets. All investments were received through banking channels, and the investor companies independently supplied information in response to Section 133(6) notices, with bank records showing sufficient funds. Directors&#039; failure to appear personally before the Assessing Officer, despite requesting appearance before an officer at Kolkata, did not by itself discredit the transactions or justify an adverse inference. The addition was therefore deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470056</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>