Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
