Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The ITAT held that additions under section 69 for unexplained investments were not justified as the alleged investments were recorded in the books and the assessee provided satisfactory explanations supported by documentary evidence. The AO's reliance solely on account entries, prepared immediately after the financial year without corroborative proof, was insufficient. The tribunal emphasized that for invoking section 69, the investments must be unrecorded in the books and the source of funds unexplained. Here, the sale consideration was not paid, and there was no physical transfer of property, rendering the purported sale invalid and the deed ineffective. Consequently, no unexplained investment arose, and the addition under section 69 was unwarranted. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the addition.
The ITAT held that additions under section 69 for unexplained investments were not justified as the alleged investments were recorded in the books and the assessee provided satisfactory explanations supported by documentary evidence. The AO's reliance solely on account entries, prepared immediately after the financial year without corroborative proof, was insufficient. The tribunal emphasized that for invoking section 69, the investments must be unrecorded in the books and the source of funds unexplained. Here, the sale consideration was not paid, and there was no physical transfer of property, rendering the purported sale invalid and the deed ineffective. Consequently, no unexplained investment arose, and the addition under section 69 was unwarranted. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the addition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.