Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
