Capital-gains exemption for charitable trusts extends to qualifying fixed deposits, while unrecoverable TDS write-offs may constitute income applicati...
India-UK treaty characterisation of telecom-service receipts as business profits withstands unilateral domestic-law amendments for Indian tax purposes...
Transfer-pricing reimbursement adjustments require uncontrolled comparables and cannot become expense-genuineness reviews, resulting in deletion of th...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
281 to 300 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Bangalore, in a case involving unexplained money u/s. 69A, addressed deposits in a bank account during the demonetisation period. The DR argued that the assessee failed to provide external evidence supporting the agricultural income declared. The tribunal noted the average agricultural income reported by the assessee for the previous three years. It observed that the AO had accepted the agricultural income while computing the total income, which is crucial for raising a demand u/s 156. Consequently, the AO could not treat it as unexplained investment u/s. 69A. The tribunal accepted the assessee's plea, considering the income as agricultural income and applying the normal tax rate. As the assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs. 15,84,000 in the return, with a portion accepted by the ld. CIT (A), the remaining amount was also deemed agricultural income. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT Bangalore, in a case involving unexplained money u/s. 69A, addressed deposits in a bank account during the demonetisation period. The DR argued that the assessee failed to provide external evidence supporting the agricultural income declared. The tribunal noted the average agricultural income reported by the assessee for the previous three years. It observed that the AO had accepted the agricultural income while computing the total income, which is crucial for raising a demand u/s 156. Consequently, the AO could not treat it as unexplained investment u/s. 69A. The tribunal accepted the assessee's plea, considering the income as agricultural income and applying the normal tax rate. As the assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs. 15,84,000 in the return, with a portion accepted by the ld. CIT (A), the remaining amount was also deemed agricultural income. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
