Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
