Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 
