Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
Gross-profit additions on disputed purchases require reasoned appellate determination; disclosed claims alone do not support inaccurate-particulars pe...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barr...
Interim judicial restraint on tax deduction prevents default, while supporting reasonable cause and penalty deletion for foreign-leg LFC reimbursement...
Penalty u/s 129(1)(b) - Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up - The High Court held that, upon a perusal of the order in appeal, it is crystal clear that the petitioner could not justify the reasons for non production of the invoice and the e-way bill. In such cases, a presumption automatically arises that there was an intention to evade tax. This presumption would be rebuttable. However, the petitioner was not able to bring any evidence to rebut the said presumption of evasion of tax.
Penalty u/s 129(1)(b) - Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up - The High Court held that, upon a perusal of the order in appeal, it is crystal clear that the petitioner could not justify the reasons for non production of the invoice and the e-way bill. In such cases, a presumption automatically arises that there was an intention to evade tax. This presumption would be rebuttable. However, the petitioner was not able to bring any evidence to rebut the said presumption of evasion of tax.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4896 
