Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 
