Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Unsecured loans - Additions u/s 69 as unexplained expenditure - the tribunal finds that the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the impugned additions as the AO failed to establish that the loss on occasion of share trading was a bogus or sham loss claimed. The second ground relates to the deletion of an addition made by the AO in respect of gross profit, and the tribunal finds that there was no difference in the amount of gross profit declared by the assessee and computed by the AO. Therefore, the tribunal dismisses the appeal of the Revenue. - AT
Unsecured loans - Additions u/s 69 as unexplained expenditure - the tribunal finds that the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the impugned additions as the AO failed to establish that the loss on occasion of share trading was a bogus or sham loss claimed. The second ground relates to the deletion of an addition made by the AO in respect of gross profit, and the tribunal finds that there was no difference in the amount of gross profit declared by the assessee and computed by the AO. Therefore, the tribunal dismisses the appeal of the Revenue. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
