<?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 (9) TMI 1792 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799766</link>
    <description>Section 68 requires an assessee receiving share capital and share premium to establish subscriber identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness. PANs, addresses, audited financial statements, bank statements, MCA records and subscriber confirmations, supported by responses to notices under section 133(6), constitute documentary evidence capable of discharging that burden where no defect is found. Directors&#039; non-appearance in response to summons under section 131, without contrary material disproving the investments, does not justify disregarding the evidence. Verified investments by traceable taxpayers are distinguishable from those involving non-existent or phantom entities; suspicion and human-probability reasoning cannot override an audited documentary trail. The unexplained-cash-credit addition was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2026 08:31:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=926123" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 1792 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799766</link>
      <description>Section 68 requires an assessee receiving share capital and share premium to establish subscriber identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness. PANs, addresses, audited financial statements, bank statements, MCA records and subscriber confirmations, supported by responses to notices under section 133(6), constitute documentary evidence capable of discharging that burden where no defect is found. Directors&#039; non-appearance in response to summons under section 131, without contrary material disproving the investments, does not justify disregarding the evidence. Verified investments by traceable taxpayers are distinguishable from those involving non-existent or phantom entities; suspicion and human-probability reasoning cannot override an audited documentary trail. The unexplained-cash-credit addition was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799766</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>