Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Validity of reopening of the case u/s. 147 - Reasons to believe - addition as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 against sale of shares / investments along with share premium - The ITAT found that the reasons recorded for reopening were vague and lacked specificity, and the approval obtained was mechanical. Additionally, it concluded that the transactions in question were sales of shares held as investments, supported by evidence provided by the appellant. Consequently, the ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeals and rejecting the additions made by the AO.
Validity of reopening of the case u/s. 147 - Reasons to believe - addition as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 against sale of shares / investments along with share premium - The ITAT found that the reasons recorded for reopening were vague and lacked specificity, and the approval obtained was mechanical. Additionally, it concluded that the transactions in question were sales of shares held as investments, supported by evidence provided by the appellant. Consequently, the ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeals and rejecting the additions made by the AO.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.