<?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>2001 (11) TMI 977 - ITAT AGRA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151943</link>
    <description>Where a cash loan is supported by account payee cheque payment, creditor confirmation, account records, bank statements, TDS deduction and tax assessment of the creditor, section 69A addition is not justified merely because the creditor&#039;s bank account showed cash deposits; the assessee need not prove the source of the creditor&#039;s source, and the consequential interest disallowance also fails. Low-yield and trading additions were deleted because the declared dall yield was found competitive on proper comparison after accounting for broken dall, and the kachari and batta khata claims were supported by reasonable comparative and accounting evidence. The assessee succeeded on all issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2016 12:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168981" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 977 - ITAT AGRA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151943</link>
      <description>Where a cash loan is supported by account payee cheque payment, creditor confirmation, account records, bank statements, TDS deduction and tax assessment of the creditor, section 69A addition is not justified merely because the creditor&#039;s bank account showed cash deposits; the assessee need not prove the source of the creditor&#039;s source, and the consequential interest disallowance also fails. Low-yield and trading additions were deleted because the declared dall yield was found competitive on proper comparison after accounting for broken dall, and the kachari and batta khata claims were supported by reasonable comparative and accounting evidence. The assessee succeeded on all issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>