SHABD PRAKASH LATH,BILASPUR(CG) vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

ITA 89/BIL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 October 2018AY 2009-107 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the expenses with bills and vouchers, and the loans with confirmations, bank statements, and balance sheets. Therefore, the additions made by the lower authorities were unjustified.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed expenses for bus operations and received loans from individuals. The Assessing Officer made additions for disallowed expenses and unexplained loan credits. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of expenses and addition of loan credits were justified when the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove their genuineness and creditworthiness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH: RAIPUR

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
For Respondent: Shri D.K. Jain, DR
Hearing: 07.08.2018Pronounced: 16.10.2018

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 27/01/2014 passed by CIT(A), Bilaspur (CG) for the A.Y 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

1.

That under the facts & the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of Rs. 80,000/- out of Rs. 1,69,630/- claimed towards expenses which is unjustified. Prayed that expenses are vouched & verifiable, moreover, the income offered is more than as required u/s 44AE.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in maintaining addition u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- received Rs. 50,000/- from Payal Lath and Rs. 2,00,000/- received from Vandana Agarwal, which is unjustified. Prayed that the appellant discharged th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →