Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
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 4787
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
