Revenue authority mandates using scheme-specific reversal procedures, not revising original entries, for instrument-based trade/customs benefits effec...
Transaction value under s.15(1) governs unrelated sales; valuation between related parties per Rule 28; consignment note required for unregistered rec...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
