<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (12) TMI 134 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63179</link>
    <description>Conveyance expenditure was allowed to be disallowed only to one-twelfth, as the assessee&#039;s claim was treated on the same footing as a sister concern&#039;s earlier assessment and no basis was found for a higher disallowance. Cash credits and interest in the names of two lady creditors were sustained as unexplained because, despite banking trail and confirmatory material, the assessee failed to satisfactorily prove the creditors&#039; identity, genuineness of the transactions, and creditworthiness. The Tribunal held that the surrounding circumstances and weak explanation of the sources meant the primary onus remained undischarged, so the addition was upheld, while relief was granted only on conveyance expense disallowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:32:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 134 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63179</link>
      <description>Conveyance expenditure was allowed to be disallowed only to one-twelfth, as the assessee&#039;s claim was treated on the same footing as a sister concern&#039;s earlier assessment and no basis was found for a higher disallowance. Cash credits and interest in the names of two lady creditors were sustained as unexplained because, despite banking trail and confirmatory material, the assessee failed to satisfactorily prove the creditors&#039; identity, genuineness of the transactions, and creditworthiness. The Tribunal held that the surrounding circumstances and weak explanation of the sources meant the primary onus remained undischarged, so the addition was upheld, while relief was granted only on conveyance expense disallowance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>