TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Upholds CIT(A) Decision on Share Application Money & Unsecured Credit</h1> <h3>M/s. Savvy Spechems P Ltd Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3 (1), Hyderabad</h3> M/s. Savvy Spechems P Ltd Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3 (1), Hyderabad - TMI Issues:- Unexplained credits under section 68- Excise duty on finished goods- Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)Unexplained credits under section 68:The assessee, engaged in manufacturing, filed a return for A.Y. 2006-07 showing a loss. The AO made additions under various issues, including unexplained credits under section 68. The CIT (A) granted partial relief, leading to appeals before the ITAT. The ITAT directed a reevaluation of the section 68 additions. The AO, after receiving confirmation letters from the assessee, added Rs. 23,51,000 under section 68. The CIT (A) confirmed additions of Rs. 7,68,000 as share application money and Rs. 11,88,000 as unsecured creditors. The assessee appealed, arguing the evidence was not considered. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, stating the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions.Excise duty on finished goods:The judgment did not provide detailed analysis or outcome specific to the issue of excise duty on finished goods.Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia):The judgment did not provide detailed analysis or outcome specific to the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).The ITAT Hyderabad, through Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member, heard the appeal concerning various issues, including unexplained credits under section 68. The assessee's failure to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions led to the confirmation of additions by the CIT (A) and subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the ITAT. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing necessary evidence to substantiate transactions, emphasizing the onus on the assessee to establish identity and creditworthiness. The decision underscored the significance of documentary proof in tax assessments and reiterated the legal principles governing such cases.
TaxTMI 