Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
The ITAT Raipur, an Appellate Tribunal, considered an appeal regarding unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. The assessee failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposits in a jointly held bank account. The AR argued that the cash came from withdrawals/savings, not requiring an addition. The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits did not appear in the assessee's "books of account," u/s. 68 did not apply. Citing a jurisdictional defect, the Tribunal vacated the addition, following precedent from CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi. Decision favored the assessee.
The ITAT Raipur, an Appellate Tribunal, considered an appeal regarding unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. The assessee failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposits in a jointly held bank account. The AR argued that the cash came from withdrawals/savings, not requiring an addition. The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits did not appear in the assessee's "books of account," u/s. 68 did not apply. Citing a jurisdictional defect, the Tribunal vacated the addition, following precedent from CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi. Decision favored the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
