<?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 Authorities Uphold Assessee&#039;s Loan Source, Stock Valuation Method, and Interest Disallowance; Reject Cessation of Liability Claim.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81775</link>
    <description>The assessee received an unsecured loan of Rs. 1 crore from M/s Betala Investment Finance Ltd., which was later transferred to Lahoti Holding Ltd. due to a name change. The authorities accepted the explanation regarding the source of the loan. Regarding stock valuation, the assessee followed a consistent method, and the authorities upheld the assessee&#039;s valuation. The authorities also accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation for the difference in raw material consumption, considering it a clerical mistake. The addition u/s 41(1) for cessation of liability was deleted as the revenue could not establish remission of income. The disallowance of interest paid above 12% on unsecured loans was rejected, following the principle of consistency as the sa.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 28 Sep 2024 08:11:12 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Sep 2024 08:11:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tax Authorities Uphold Assessee&#039;s Loan Source, Stock Valuation Method, and Interest Disallowance; Reject Cessation of Liability Claim.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81775</link>
      <description>The assessee received an unsecured loan of Rs. 1 crore from M/s Betala Investment Finance Ltd., which was later transferred to Lahoti Holding Ltd. due to a name change. The authorities accepted the explanation regarding the source of the loan. Regarding stock valuation, the assessee followed a consistent method, and the authorities upheld the assessee&#039;s valuation. The authorities also accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation for the difference in raw material consumption, considering it a clerical mistake. The addition u/s 41(1) for cessation of liability was deleted as the revenue could not establish remission of income. The disallowance of interest paid above 12% on unsecured loans was rejected, following the principle of consistency as the sa.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Sep 2024 08:11:12 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81775</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>