Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Revision u/s 263 - unexplained cash deposits - onus to prove - The Pr. CIT found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests due to inadequate verification. - The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Principal Commissioner's decision, stating that the AO had not adequately examined the sources of cash deposits nor obtained relevant details or evidence before accepting explanations. The appellant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting claims, and the AO's assessment lacked thorough inquiry.
Revision u/s 263 - unexplained cash deposits - onus to prove - The Pr. CIT found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests due to inadequate verification. - The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Principal Commissioner's decision, stating that the AO had not adequately examined the sources of cash deposits nor obtained relevant details or evidence before accepting explanations. The appellant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting claims, and the AO's assessment lacked thorough inquiry.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
