Promissory note presumption of consideration survives blank-signature and income-tax non-disclosure objections when admissions and attesting evidence ...
Charitable registration cancellation: limitation and jurisdiction upheld, but withdrawal quashed under discontinued provisions for skill-development e...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1421 to 1440 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
