Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1061 to 1080 of 96136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT applied the real income theory to hold that alleged bonus or commission receivable could not be taxed on a due basis where there was no proof of receipt, no employer provisioning, and no document showing a legal right to receive the amount; the deletion of that addition was upheld. On the unexplained money issue, the Tribunal accepted third-party confirmations, agreements, revenue records and section 133(6) responses admitting cash handed over for proposed land transactions, and directed deletion of Rs. 85,00,000. For the remaining cash addition, it held that bare assertions of cash savings and business receipts were insufficient without corroboration, so the relief already granted by the first appellate authority was sustained and no further interference was warranted.
ITAT applied the real income theory to hold that alleged bonus or commission receivable could not be taxed on a due basis where there was no proof of receipt, no employer provisioning, and no document showing a legal right to receive the amount; the deletion of that addition was upheld. On the unexplained money issue, the Tribunal accepted third-party confirmations, agreements, revenue records and section 133(6) responses admitting cash handed over for proposed land transactions, and directed deletion of Rs. 85,00,000. For the remaining cash addition, it held that bare assertions of cash savings and business receipts were insufficient without corroboration, so the relief already granted by the first appellate authority was sustained and no further interference was warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
