Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
