Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The ITAT Mumbai upheld the disallowance made u/s. 80IA due to the assessee not claiming the deduction u/s. 80IA in response to the return filed u/s. 153A. The AO added bogus purchases, but the CIT(A) confirmed the addition while allowing deduction u/s. 80IA as the purchases were related to business activity. The AO applied gross profit rate to one party's purchases and deemed the other party's transactions as 'bogus,' leading to an increase in business income eligible for u/s. 80IA deduction. The ITAT relied on CBDT Circular No.37 of 2016 and past precedents, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. The appeal was decided against the revenue.
The ITAT Mumbai upheld the disallowance made u/s. 80IA due to the assessee not claiming the deduction u/s. 80IA in response to the return filed u/s. 153A. The AO added bogus purchases, but the CIT(A) confirmed the addition while allowing deduction u/s. 80IA as the purchases were related to business activity. The AO applied gross profit rate to one party's purchases and deemed the other party's transactions as 'bogus,' leading to an increase in business income eligible for u/s. 80IA deduction. The ITAT relied on CBDT Circular No.37 of 2016 and past precedents, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. The appeal was decided against the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
