Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Separate corporate personality was upheld for the two foreign companies, and section 69A could not be applied because the Revenue failed to show by cogent evidence that their bank funds belonged beneficially to the assessee. Mere earlier shareholding, directorship, or authority to operate accounts was held insufficient to lift the corporate veil, especially when no material showed flow of funds from India to the companies or receipt by the assessee from those accounts. The assessee's explanation that the transactions related to his non-resident son and son-in-law was supported by confirmations, and his prior resignation and share transfer further weakened the ownership allegation. The quantum additions were deleted, and the related penalty under section 271(1)(c) also fell.
Separate corporate personality was upheld for the two foreign companies, and section 69A could not be applied because the Revenue failed to show by cogent evidence that their bank funds belonged beneficially to the assessee. Mere earlier shareholding, directorship, or authority to operate accounts was held insufficient to lift the corporate veil, especially when no material showed flow of funds from India to the companies or receipt by the assessee from those accounts. The assessee's explanation that the transactions related to his non-resident son and son-in-law was supported by confirmations, and his prior resignation and share transfer further weakened the ownership allegation. The quantum additions were deleted, and the related penalty under section 271(1)(c) also fell.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
