Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
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...
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 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
