Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 Jodhpur dealt with a case involving addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act concerning alleged bogus share application money. The Investigation Wing provided specific information, but the CIT(A) deleted the addition after finding the investor companies' identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were proven by the assessee. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating the AO lacked a basis for the addition. The commission expenses for the alleged bogus share application money were deemed unnecessary due to the genuine nature of the funds. The reassessment proceedings' validity was not directly addressed by the CIT(A) but was considered decided against the assessee based on a legal precedent. The tribunal allowed the assessee to argue the reassessment issue despite not appealing the CIT(A)'s decision, in line with ITAT Rules.
The ITAT Jodhpur dealt with a case involving addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act concerning alleged bogus share application money. The Investigation Wing provided specific information, but the CIT(A) deleted the addition after finding the investor companies' identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were proven by the assessee. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating the AO lacked a basis for the addition. The commission expenses for the alleged bogus share application money were deemed unnecessary due to the genuine nature of the funds. The reassessment proceedings' validity was not directly addressed by the CIT(A) but was considered decided against the assessee based on a legal precedent. The tribunal allowed the assessee to argue the reassessment issue despite not appealing the CIT(A)'s decision, in line with ITAT Rules.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
