Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The ITAT Delhi addressed an addition u/s 41(1) converted from u/s 68, focusing on whether there was actual receipt of money or just journal entries for account adjustments. The AR argued that the entries were for loan adjustments from a prior year. The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s conclusion erroneous as there was no actual receipt of money, only journal entries reflecting borrowed funds and liabilities transferred to M/s Vrinda Developers Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal held that the journal entry did not constitute unexplained cash credit u/s 68, as it was a book entry transfer without a real cash credit. Citing a similar case, the tribunal emphasized the need for actual flow of funds to trigger the explanation requirement. Additionally, the tribunal allowed the expenditure related to a project started in the relevant year, despite the invoice being raised in the previous year. The decision favored the assessee based on project-related expenditure evidence.
The ITAT Delhi addressed an addition u/s 41(1) converted from u/s 68, focusing on whether there was actual receipt of money or just journal entries for account adjustments. The AR argued that the entries were for loan adjustments from a prior year. The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s conclusion erroneous as there was no actual receipt of money, only journal entries reflecting borrowed funds and liabilities transferred to M/s Vrinda Developers Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal held that the journal entry did not constitute unexplained cash credit u/s 68, as it was a book entry transfer without a real cash credit. Citing a similar case, the tribunal emphasized the need for actual flow of funds to trigger the explanation requirement. Additionally, the tribunal allowed the expenditure related to a project started in the relevant year, despite the invoice being raised in the previous year. The decision favored the assessee based on project-related expenditure evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
