Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Unexplained creditor u/s. 68 - onus to prove - The ITAT ruled that once the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction are established, proving the creditor's capacity is not mandatory for the assessee. This is supported by the precedent set in "Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO" by the Rajasthan High Court, aligning with the doctrine that the onus shifts away from the assessee once the initial proof of transaction is provided.
Unexplained creditor u/s. 68 - onus to prove - The ITAT ruled that once the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction are established, proving the creditor's capacity is not mandatory for the assessee. This is supported by the precedent set in "Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO" by the Rajasthan High Court, aligning with the doctrine that the onus shifts away from the assessee once the initial proof of transaction is provided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
