Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
Unsubstantiated exempt agricultural income claim sustains concealment penalty after disclosure only on departmental detection and no bona fide evidenc...
ITAT held that interest on unsecured loans was correctly disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). The assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness and creditworthiness of loan transactions. Mere routing of interest through banking channels or TDS deduction does not prove loan legitimacy. The tribunal found no credible documentary evidence to establish the identity of lenders or loan authenticity. The assessee's inability to provide repayment details or demonstrate commercial substance of loans justified the disallowance of interest expenditure. The decision reinforces the principle that deduction of interest is contingent upon proving a genuine and subsisting business liability. Ultimately, the appeal was decided against the assessee, upholding the lower authorities' findings.
ITAT held that interest on unsecured loans was correctly disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). The assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness and creditworthiness of loan transactions. Mere routing of interest through banking channels or TDS deduction does not prove loan legitimacy. The tribunal found no credible documentary evidence to establish the identity of lenders or loan authenticity. The assessee's inability to provide repayment details or demonstrate commercial substance of loans justified the disallowance of interest expenditure. The decision reinforces the principle that deduction of interest is contingent upon proving a genuine and subsisting business liability. Ultimately, the appeal was decided against the assessee, upholding the lower authorities' findings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.