Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 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 reversed additions made by the AO under Section 69C based on entries in a seized diary, finding that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by denying the contents, while Revenue failed to conduct independent inquiries or produce corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that additions based solely on diary entries without supporting evidence would be contrary to judicial precedent, noting that the presumption under Sections 132(4A) and 292C is rebuttable. The ITAT applied the principle that the burden of proof lies on the person making allegations, and an assessee cannot be required to prove a negative. Similarly, unexplained investment allegations for plot purchase were rejected due to lack of documentary evidence. The assessee's appeals were allowed.
The ITAT reversed additions made by the AO under Section 69C based on entries in a seized diary, finding that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by denying the contents, while Revenue failed to conduct independent inquiries or produce corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that additions based solely on diary entries without supporting evidence would be contrary to judicial precedent, noting that the presumption under Sections 132(4A) and 292C is rebuttable. The ITAT applied the principle that the burden of proof lies on the person making allegations, and an assessee cannot be required to prove a negative. Similarly, unexplained investment allegations for plot purchase were rejected due to lack of documentary evidence. The assessee's appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.