<?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>2022 (5) TMI 1586 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310247</link>
    <description>The appeal against the addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13 was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant failed to provide evidence regarding the identity and creditworthiness of investors and the genuineness of transactions. Despite multiple opportunities, the appellant did not appear for the hearing or submit any documents. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision, as the appellant&#039;s share capital remained unproved, emphasizing the lack of supporting evidence. The addition of unexplained cash credit was affirmed based on the available materials and the appellant&#039;s failure to substantiate its claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2023 21:25:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1586 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310247</link>
      <description>The appeal against the addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13 was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant failed to provide evidence regarding the identity and creditworthiness of investors and the genuineness of transactions. Despite multiple opportunities, the appellant did not appear for the hearing or submit any documents. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision, as the appellant&#039;s share capital remained unproved, emphasizing the lack of supporting evidence. The addition of unexplained cash credit was affirmed based on the available materials and the appellant&#039;s failure to substantiate its claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>