Camouflaging of Loan to Director as commercial transaction: Invocation of s. 2(22)(e) justified

Shri Hemanth Kumar Bothra Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

A careful perusal of the copy of the Memorandum of Understanding [Refer: Paper Book of the assessee], we find that the assessee had himself signed on behalf of NIPL (purchaser) and for himself (seller). The authenticity of the so called MOU cannot also be cross verified as it was not registered with the registering authority. Thus, the AO’s observation that “the explanation [of the assessee] is a self serving argument….” [Para 5 of the asst. order] cannot be

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.