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 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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
