Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
