Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
The ITAT Delhi, in an assessment u/s 153A, addressed the addition u/s 68 concerning income from undisclosed sources. The appellant, a partner in M/s. RNB Leasing and Financial Services, had filed a return for the assessment year. Following search and seizure operations, a key to an Indian Overseas Bank locker was found in the names of Lalita Bajaj and the appellant. Despite no incriminating evidence found during the search of the locker, the AO made additions u/s 68 in a similar case involving share allotment. However, in the present case, the appellant did not receive share application money or premium but was involved in the sale of investments/shares to other entities. The Department did not dispute the investment in shares during the earlier period. The ITAT allowed the appellant's grounds on merits, distinguishing the case from previous rulings.
The ITAT Delhi, in an assessment u/s 153A, addressed the addition u/s 68 concerning income from undisclosed sources. The appellant, a partner in M/s. RNB Leasing and Financial Services, had filed a return for the assessment year. Following search and seizure operations, a key to an Indian Overseas Bank locker was found in the names of Lalita Bajaj and the appellant. Despite no incriminating evidence found during the search of the locker, the AO made additions u/s 68 in a similar case involving share allotment. However, in the present case, the appellant did not receive share application money or premium but was involved in the sale of investments/shares to other entities. The Department did not dispute the investment in shares during the earlier period. The ITAT allowed the appellant's grounds on merits, distinguishing the case from previous rulings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
