<?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 (12) TMI 1211 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763631</link>
    <description>ITAT Ahmedabad deleted addition under section 68 regarding unsecured loans from paper companies. The assessee had returned the loan amount to the lender during the same year and conducted all transactions through banking channels. Following precedents from Gujarat HC in Ojas Tarmake and Ganesh Plantation cases, the tribunal found no proximate nexus between alleged dubious transactions and the assessee. The revenue&#039;s case was rejected as the assessee had discharged the burden of proof required under section 68.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2024 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=784221" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1211 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763631</link>
      <description>ITAT Ahmedabad deleted addition under section 68 regarding unsecured loans from paper companies. The assessee had returned the loan amount to the lender during the same year and conducted all transactions through banking channels. Following precedents from Gujarat HC in Ojas Tarmake and Ganesh Plantation cases, the tribunal found no proximate nexus between alleged dubious transactions and the assessee. The revenue&#039;s case was rejected as the assessee had discharged the burden of proof required under section 68.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>