Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO under s.68 regarding share application money/premium received from non-resident investors. The Tribunal found the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity and creditworthiness of investors and transaction genuineness. Regarding trade payables, the ITAT determined s.68 was inapplicable as the disputed amounts represented outstanding liabilities for purchases rather than unexplained credits in the assessee's books. Following Kulwinder Singh, the Tribunal confirmed that s.68 provisions do not apply to amounts representing credit purchases. The Revenue's appeal was accordingly dismissed on both grounds.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO under s.68 regarding share application money/premium received from non-resident investors. The Tribunal found the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity and creditworthiness of investors and transaction genuineness. Regarding trade payables, the ITAT determined s.68 was inapplicable as the disputed amounts represented outstanding liabilities for purchases rather than unexplained credits in the assessee's books. Following Kulwinder Singh, the Tribunal confirmed that s.68 provisions do not apply to amounts representing credit purchases. The Revenue's appeal was accordingly dismissed on both grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
