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...
An ITAT deleted an addition under section 69C for alleged on-money payment because the assessment rested only on an investigation report, a seized excel sheet naming another person, and a general builder's employee statement. The assessee's banking-channel payment evidence was not rebutted, and no independent corroboration of cash payment was brought on record. The third-party statement was untested by cross-examination and could not, by itself, sustain the addition. The appeal was partly allowed.
An ITAT deleted an addition under section 69C for alleged on-money payment because the assessment rested only on an investigation report, a seized excel sheet naming another person, and a general builder's employee statement. The assessee's banking-channel payment evidence was not rebutted, and no independent corroboration of cash payment was brought on record. The third-party statement was untested by cross-examination and could not, by itself, sustain the addition. The appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.