Functional comparability under TNMM requires transaction-specific FAR analysis before benchmarking business-support services provided to associated en...
Advance pricing agreement methodology can guide benchmarking for non-covered years when functions, assets, risks and activities remain materially unch...
Tax-audit exemption for substantially State-funded educational universities prevents audit-failure penalties where income qualifies for statutory exem...
Functional, asset and risk analysis excludes diversified technology companies from captive software development comparables under cost-plus arrangemen...
Mobile-phone electronic evidence failed to establish customs undervaluation, while duty survived on non-authentic origin certificates without importer...
Automotive radio classification treats integrated infotainment features as supplementary, placing complete and qualifying unassembled units under the ...
Separate corporate personality prevents directors from being personally liable for company deposits without a guarantee or independent legal undertaki...
Page of 4905
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 98083 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 4905 
