Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
