Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
In a case concerning unexplained credit u/s 68, the assessee proved the identity and genuineness of share applicants, although their creditworthiness was questioned. The court held that if the assessing officer doubts creditworthiness, verification should be done in the shareholders' hands, not the assessee company's. If shareholders are identified, non-fictitious, and payments made through banking channels, no addition u/s 69 is permissible. The assessee provided ITRs, bank statements, and PAN details, proving shareholders' identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. Regarding ad hoc expense disallowance for lack of bills/vouchers, the court observed the assessing officer failed to pinpoint specific expenses and deleted the disallowance. On share application money treated as unexplained u/s 68, the court held that for small investors investing limited amounts, creditworthiness cannot be doubted solely for non-filing of ITRs/bank statements when identity and genuineness are proved through application forms and receipts. Once shareholder identity is proved, the assessee's onus to prove the source is discharged.
In a case concerning unexplained credit u/s 68, the assessee proved the identity and genuineness of share applicants, although their creditworthiness was questioned. The court held that if the assessing officer doubts creditworthiness, verification should be done in the shareholders' hands, not the assessee company's. If shareholders are identified, non-fictitious, and payments made through banking channels, no addition u/s 69 is permissible. The assessee provided ITRs, bank statements, and PAN details, proving shareholders' identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. Regarding ad hoc expense disallowance for lack of bills/vouchers, the court observed the assessing officer failed to pinpoint specific expenses and deleted the disallowance. On share application money treated as unexplained u/s 68, the court held that for small investors investing limited amounts, creditworthiness cannot be doubted solely for non-filing of ITRs/bank statements when identity and genuineness are proved through application forms and receipts. Once shareholder identity is proved, the assessee's onus to prove the source is discharged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
