Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Addition u/s 68 - related party transaction - Merely because M/s. LDC Holding Pvt. Ltd., outsourced solar plant installation work to a third-party, would not make the transaction to be bogus. Similarly, in respect of manpower supply charges paid by assessee, except for the allegation by the Ld. AO that the employees who rendered services to assessee were related to the director of assessee would not lead to a conclusion that the necessity of such services were not required by assessee. In any case there is no evidence brought on record by the Ld. AO that assessee was not in requirement of any manpower supply services or that the solar plant machine was not installed by assessee. - No additions - AT
Addition u/s 68 - related party transaction - Merely because M/s. LDC Holding Pvt. Ltd., outsourced solar plant installation work to a third-party, would not make the transaction to be bogus. Similarly, in respect of manpower supply charges paid by assessee, except for the allegation by the Ld. AO that the employees who rendered services to assessee were related to the director of assessee would not lead to a conclusion that the necessity of such services were not required by assessee. In any case there is no evidence brought on record by the Ld. AO that assessee was not in requirement of any manpower supply services or that the solar plant machine was not installed by assessee. - No additions - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
