Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The ITAT Mumbai held that the burden of proof regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loan creditors lies with the assessee. Once the assessee establishes the "nature and source" of credit entries, the onus shifts to the AO to rebut it with cogent evidence. In this case, the AO relied on a statement without cross-examining the individual, who later retracted the statement citing coercion. The AO's failure to summon and cross-examine the individual renders the addition u/s 68 unsustainable. The untested statement alone cannot justify the disallowance of interest expenditure. Citing precedent, the ITAT directed the deletion of the addition u/s 68 and allowed the interest expenditure after TDS deduction for the relevant assessment years.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the burden of proof regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loan creditors lies with the assessee. Once the assessee establishes the "nature and source" of credit entries, the onus shifts to the AO to rebut it with cogent evidence. In this case, the AO relied on a statement without cross-examining the individual, who later retracted the statement citing coercion. The AO's failure to summon and cross-examine the individual renders the addition u/s 68 unsustainable. The untested statement alone cannot justify the disallowance of interest expenditure. Citing precedent, the ITAT directed the deletion of the addition u/s 68 and allowed the interest expenditure after TDS deduction for the relevant assessment years.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
