Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1461 to 1480 of 96262 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 4814 
Join Channel 
