Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 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 
