The appellant contended before the Tribunal that,  the representatives from investor companies were examined on oath and have confirmed making the investment at premium. Complete details and confirmation of transaction available and are not contradicted in any why that shares were acquired at a premium as continues to be reflected in books of accounts of Appellant Company. Quantity of Share premium on shares of private company are not regulated by law and is based on commercial negotiations.  Share premium money received is fully accounted and continues to remain in the company to date fully compliant with section 78 of companies Act. Allegations that the same could be towards services by promoters are totally baseless and not supported by any material. Amount of share premium is permitted to be negotiated between investor and company and there are no restrictions on the quantum. Bharati Cement Corporation Limited as legal entity is distinct and separate from promoters or shareholders, presumptions made in impugned order to the contrary are contrary to settled principles of law, unlawful, factually baseless and invalid. As no amount of share premium is alleged or even shown to have been allowed as pass through by the company there is no basis  for suspicions and wild allegations. Without prejudice, even if lifting of corporate veil is permissible, the consequence would not lead to taxation of share premium in the hands of Appellant Company.  The Tribunal held that the fact that the premium is abnormally high as per test of human probabilities is not sufficient to the AO to lift the corporate veil .Presumptions of some service/benefits being allowed by government of state of Andhra Pradesh to investor companies, even if presumed to be true for argument sake cannot justify taxation of any amount in the hands of Appellant company, as being a legal entity Appellant Company was neither in business of providing such services or was actually involved in any way. Details provided also establish that the entire sum and even subsequent share premium amount received from PARFICM remains invested in Appellant’s business as on date of this hearing.  AO brought impugned share premium to tax under S. 28 (iv) and S. 68 but the Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed that the same is taxable under S. 56. Department is not in appeal against Ld. CIT (A) order. The subsequent amendment by way of S. 56 2(viib) effective 1.4.2013 i.e., AY. 2013-14 cannot be applied for impugned transactions completed during AY 1009 -10 and 2010-11. On record confirm that S. 68 and S. 28 (iv) have no application at all. Tribunal directed the AO to  verify all the funds and cash flow management of the company for both AY. 2009-10 & 2010-11. AO should not resort to rely on circumstantial evidence or on test of human probabilities but on factual evidence of passing of benefit to the shareholders/directors. Hence, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. ( ITA Nos. 696 & 697/Hyd/2014, dt. 10.08.2018) (AY. 2009-10, 2010-11)