Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT held that the addition u/s 68 treating the loan taken by the appellant as an accommodation entry was not justified. The key reasons were: 1) There was no evidence that the lender company admitted giving accommodation entries or that the funds were channelized from undisclosed income of the appellant. 2) Repayment of loans by the appellant disproved the allegation of being the final beneficiary. 3) Identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of borrowings were proved through details and evidence submitted. 4) Denial of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the addition violated principles of natural justice, making the order a nullity. Consequently, the ITAT deleted the addition made to the appellant's income.
The ITAT held that the addition u/s 68 treating the loan taken by the appellant as an accommodation entry was not justified. The key reasons were: 1) There was no evidence that the lender company admitted giving accommodation entries or that the funds were channelized from undisclosed income of the appellant. 2) Repayment of loans by the appellant disproved the allegation of being the final beneficiary. 3) Identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of borrowings were proved through details and evidence submitted. 4) Denial of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the addition violated principles of natural justice, making the order a nullity. Consequently, the ITAT deleted the addition made to the appellant's income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
