Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
