<?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>2013 (10) TMI 1074 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238619</link>
    <description>Corroborated surrounding circumstances can justify taxing deposits in a third party&#039;s bank account in the assessee&#039;s hands where the assessee effectively controlled the account, and denial of cross-examination is not fatal if the addition rests on supporting material and probabilities. Unexplained capital credits and a third-party loan were sustained because identity alone did not prove creditworthiness or genuineness, and the source of funds remained unsubstantiated. Interest income omitted from the return but noticed in reassessment was also sustained. By contrast, personal expenses met from firm drawings were accepted, while the residential construction investment issue was remanded for fresh examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 21:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1074 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238619</link>
      <description>Corroborated surrounding circumstances can justify taxing deposits in a third party&#039;s bank account in the assessee&#039;s hands where the assessee effectively controlled the account, and denial of cross-examination is not fatal if the addition rests on supporting material and probabilities. Unexplained capital credits and a third-party loan were sustained because identity alone did not prove creditworthiness or genuineness, and the source of funds remained unsubstantiated. Interest income omitted from the return but noticed in reassessment was also sustained. By contrast, personal expenses met from firm drawings were accepted, while the residential construction investment issue was remanded for fresh examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>