https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413500 The appeal was dismissed due to the continuous non-cooperation of the assessee, leading to the disposal of the case. The addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act was upheld as the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loan transactions. Disallowance of ROC charges as capital expenditure was confirmed, and the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was considered consequential. The initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deemed premature for adjudication. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing evidence and complying with legal procedures in tax matters. en-us Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:43:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413500 The appeal was dismissed due to the continuous non-cooperation of the assessee, leading to the disposal of the case. The addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act was upheld as the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loan transactions. Disallowance of ROC charges as capital expenditure was confirmed, and the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was considered consequential. The initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deemed premature for adjudication. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing evidence and complying with legal procedures in tax matters. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413500