Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
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.