Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Estimation of income - bogus purchases - The Tribunal considered the facts surrounding the alleged bogus purchases. Despite the inability of the assessee to establish the identity of the parties and the genuineness of the transactions, the Tribunal deliberated on whether the Assessing Officer was justified in adding the entire amount of bogus purchases or only the profit margin. Referring to a precedent set by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal concluded that once it is determined that the amount represents alleged bogus purchases from bogus suppliers, it is not necessary to restrict the disallowance. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the addition of 100% of the alleged bogus purchases.
Estimation of income - bogus purchases - The Tribunal considered the facts surrounding the alleged bogus purchases. Despite the inability of the assessee to establish the identity of the parties and the genuineness of the transactions, the Tribunal deliberated on whether the Assessing Officer was justified in adding the entire amount of bogus purchases or only the profit margin. Referring to a precedent set by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal concluded that once it is determined that the amount represents alleged bogus purchases from bogus suppliers, it is not necessary to restrict the disallowance. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the addition of 100% of the alleged bogus purchases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.