Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Addition u/s 69 - addition based on the estimation of the cost of acquisition of the property - The ITAT observed that the AO had relied heavily on statements obtained during the survey proceedings, particularly regarding the payment of on-money for the property purchase. However, the Tribunal emphasized that such statements, which were later retracted, could not constitute valid evidence for making additions to the appellant's income. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not provided any supporting material apart from these statements to justify the addition. Considering these factors, the Tribunal held that the AO's decision to estimate the property acquisition cost at a higher value lacked sufficient basis and was not supported by credible evidence.
Addition u/s 69 - addition based on the estimation of the cost of acquisition of the property - The ITAT observed that the AO had relied heavily on statements obtained during the survey proceedings, particularly regarding the payment of on-money for the property purchase. However, the Tribunal emphasized that such statements, which were later retracted, could not constitute valid evidence for making additions to the appellant's income. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not provided any supporting material apart from these statements to justify the addition. Considering these factors, the Tribunal held that the AO's decision to estimate the property acquisition cost at a higher value lacked sufficient basis and was not supported by credible evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
