Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1021 to 1040 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
