Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - family transaction - assessee has submitted that the assessee’s husband was a power of attorney holder of the property and could not convey the property as an agent and therefore, to avoid future litigation and to secure better title over the property, a sale deed in favour of the assessee, being the wife was executed - if we go by the narrations in the Sale deed, then the assessee’s claim that the impugned transaction is a “family transaction” where no consideration has passed is liable to be rejected since the actual vendor of the impugned property is not the Husband of appellant (POA holder) - AT
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - family transaction - assessee has submitted that the assessee’s husband was a power of attorney holder of the property and could not convey the property as an agent and therefore, to avoid future litigation and to secure better title over the property, a sale deed in favour of the assessee, being the wife was executed - if we go by the narrations in the Sale deed, then the assessee’s claim that the impugned transaction is a “family transaction” where no consideration has passed is liable to be rejected since the actual vendor of the impugned property is not the Husband of appellant (POA holder) - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
