Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an income addition where the AO had disallowed capital introduced by a partner as unexplained income. The Tribunal found the assessee established identity and capacity of the creditor (the partner) and that absence of interest payments to a company did not demonstrate transaction sham; alternative explanations (e.g. borrower's poor finances) could account for nonpayment. The AO failed to discharge the burden of proving the funds originated from the firm rather than the partner or that the transaction was a colourable device. In consequence the addition lacked sufficient evidentiary foundation and the Revenue's ground was rejected.
ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an income addition where the AO had disallowed capital introduced by a partner as unexplained income. The Tribunal found the assessee established identity and capacity of the creditor (the partner) and that absence of interest payments to a company did not demonstrate transaction sham; alternative explanations (e.g. borrower's poor finances) could account for nonpayment. The AO failed to discharge the burden of proving the funds originated from the firm rather than the partner or that the transaction was a colourable device. In consequence the addition lacked sufficient evidentiary foundation and the Revenue's ground was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
