Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Page of 4787
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95724 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Addition u/s 69A - cash loans given by the assessee as unexplained - decoding of the entries in the seized materials - The tribunal found that the assessing officer's reliance on statements recorded during the search was insufficient to justify the addition under section 69A. They emphasized that the assessing officer did not entertain the appellant's request for cross-examination, and the retracted statements raised doubts about their reliability. Additionally, the tribunal noted discrepancies in the interpretation of entries and the lack of concrete evidence connecting the appellant to the transactions. Therefore, they deemed the addition unjustified and deleted it.
Addition u/s 69A - cash loans given by the assessee as unexplained - decoding of the entries in the seized materials - The tribunal found that the assessing officer's reliance on statements recorded during the search was insufficient to justify the addition under section 69A. They emphasized that the assessing officer did not entertain the appellant's request for cross-examination, and the retracted statements raised doubts about their reliability. Additionally, the tribunal noted discrepancies in the interpretation of entries and the lack of concrete evidence connecting the appellant to the transactions. Therefore, they deemed the addition unjustified and deleted it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.