2016 (9) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which investments and share application money is deemed suspect. In the present case, the share applicant’s identity was disclosed and the source of his funds was also proved. That the AO did not deem it appropriate to probe further did not mean that the incomes were liable to be treated under Section 68. The appeal does not raise any substantial question of law - ITA 457/2016 - - - Dated:- 22-8 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent year in question is concerned, the CIT(A) was satisfied that an addition under Section 68 was not warranted because the share applicant/Vinay Khosla s particulars, i.e. address, the NRI bank account etc. were specified and disclosed in the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) held as follows: 6. After going through various facts of the case and judicial pronouncement on this issue, cited su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re filed like PAN No. Bank a/c details, residential address etc. was filed. Since in the present case the AO has failed to bring any clinching evidences to support the presumption taken by him, it is clear that even the ratio of judgment in the case of McDowell Ltd. is not applicable in the instant case. In the light of the above discussion, I am inclined to agree with the arguments a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X