https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760052 ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on two key issues. Regarding addition under Section 41(1) for remission of liability, the tribunal held that since liabilities were shown as outstanding in the balance sheet and subsequently discharged in the following year, with creditor confirmations on record, no cessation of liability occurred. The assessee had discharged its primary onus. On the Section 68 addition for unexplained cash credit, the tribunal found the assessee proved all three ingredients - identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender through proper documentation and banking channels. Non-response to summons by the lender could not create adverse inference against the assessee. Appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 10 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760052 ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on two key issues. Regarding addition under Section 41(1) for remission of liability, the tribunal held that since liabilities were shown as outstanding in the balance sheet and subsequently discharged in the following year, with creditor confirmations on record, no cessation of liability occurred. The assessee had discharged its primary onus. On the Section 68 addition for unexplained cash credit, the tribunal found the assessee proved all three ingredients - identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender through proper documentation and banking channels. Non-response to summons by the lender could not create adverse inference against the assessee. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 10 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760052