<?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>2012 (8) TMI 384 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215699</link>
    <description>Once an assessee shows that unsecured loans were received through account payee cheques, and substantiates the creditors&#039; identity, genuineness of the transactions and prima facie creditworthiness through confirmations and bank records, the initial burden under section 68 is discharged; the assessee is not required to prove the creditor&#039;s source of source unless that matter is within his special knowledge. On those facts, the cash-credit addition was deleted. A separate ad hoc disallowance of telephone expenses was accepted only in part because some personal use could not be ruled out, but the original disallowance was found excessive and was restricted accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 384 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215699</link>
      <description>Once an assessee shows that unsecured loans were received through account payee cheques, and substantiates the creditors&#039; identity, genuineness of the transactions and prima facie creditworthiness through confirmations and bank records, the initial burden under section 68 is discharged; the assessee is not required to prove the creditor&#039;s source of source unless that matter is within his special knowledge. On those facts, the cash-credit addition was deleted. A separate ad hoc disallowance of telephone expenses was accepted only in part because some personal use could not be ruled out, but the original disallowance was found excessive and was restricted accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>