<?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>2024 (5) TMI 445 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752392</link>
    <description>The Gujarat HC dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal regarding addition under section 68 for unsecured loans/cash credits. The ITAT had deleted the addition, finding that no new loans were taken during the assessment year - the amounts were opening balances from 01.04.2013 that were carried forward. The assessee had established genuineness of cash credits by furnishing all required details including ITR, audit report, and balance sheet to prove correctness of books of accounts. The AO&#039;s rejection of books lacked proper satisfaction/reasons, making it unjustifiable. Both CIT(A) and ITAT concurrently found these to be factual determinations with no substantial question of law arising.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2024 07:21:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 445 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752392</link>
      <description>The Gujarat HC dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal regarding addition under section 68 for unsecured loans/cash credits. The ITAT had deleted the addition, finding that no new loans were taken during the assessment year - the amounts were opening balances from 01.04.2013 that were carried forward. The assessee had established genuineness of cash credits by furnishing all required details including ITR, audit report, and balance sheet to prove correctness of books of accounts. The AO&#039;s rejection of books lacked proper satisfaction/reasons, making it unjustifiable. Both CIT(A) and ITAT concurrently found these to be factual determinations with no substantial question of law arising.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>