<?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>Tax Tribunal Shifts Burden of Proof to Assessing Officer After Assessee Establishes Loan Creditor Details.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77838</link>
    <description>The ITAT Mumbai held that the burden of proof regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loan creditors lies with the assessee. Once the assessee establishes the &quot;nature and source&quot; of credit entries, the onus shifts to the AO to rebut it with cogent evidence. In this case, the AO relied on a statement without cross-examining the individual, who later retracted the statement citing coercion. The AO&#039;s failure to summon and cross-examine the individual renders the addition u/s 68 unsustainable. The untested statement alone cannot justify the disallowance of interest expenditure. Citing precedent, the ITAT directed the deletion of the addition u/s 68 and allowed the interest expenditure after TDS deduction for the relevant assessment years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2024 08:07:29 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 May 2024 08:07:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tax Tribunal Shifts Burden of Proof to Assessing Officer After Assessee Establishes Loan Creditor Details.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77838</link>
      <description>The ITAT Mumbai held that the burden of proof regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loan creditors lies with the assessee. Once the assessee establishes the &quot;nature and source&quot; of credit entries, the onus shifts to the AO to rebut it with cogent evidence. In this case, the AO relied on a statement without cross-examining the individual, who later retracted the statement citing coercion. The AO&#039;s failure to summon and cross-examine the individual renders the addition u/s 68 unsustainable. The untested statement alone cannot justify the disallowance of interest expenditure. Citing precedent, the ITAT directed the deletion of the addition u/s 68 and allowed the interest expenditure after TDS deduction for the relevant assessment years.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2024 08:07:29 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>