Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Enhancement of assessment - Power of CIT(A) u/s 251(2) - addition u/s 56(2)(vii) - The appellant had received Rs. 25,00,000 as a security deposit from a developer, the amount was subsequently repaid - Providing / granting the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present their case against the enhancement - The Tribunal deemed this non-compliance as an irregularity rather than an illegality. However, the Tribunal decided to review the addition made under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. It was determined that since the deposit received by the appellant was not without consideration, being related to a development agreement, the addition was not sustainable. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned additions were directed to be deleted.
Enhancement of assessment - Power of CIT(A) u/s 251(2) - addition u/s 56(2)(vii) - The appellant had received Rs. 25,00,000 as a security deposit from a developer, the amount was subsequently repaid - Providing / granting the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present their case against the enhancement - The Tribunal deemed this non-compliance as an irregularity rather than an illegality. However, the Tribunal decided to review the addition made under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. It was determined that since the deposit received by the appellant was not without consideration, being related to a development agreement, the addition was not sustainable. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned additions were directed to be deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
