Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95752 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 Surat ruled on unexplained cash credit u/s 68, finding the assessee proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of unsecured loan receipts. Repayment evidence via banking channels was accepted. Legal precedents like CIT Vs Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji were cited to support no addition when loans were repaid in subsequent years. Cases like ACIT Vs Naresh Nemchand Shah and Rajhans Construction (P) Ltd. were referenced for similar views. The decision in CIT Vs. Amber Tradecorp (P) ltd. emphasized no addition u/s 68 if loans were repaid. Precedents like Rohini Builders and USHA STUD AGRICULTURAL FARM LTD. were cited to support the assessee's position. The addition of unsecured loans was disallowed, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT Surat ruled on unexplained cash credit u/s 68, finding the assessee proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of unsecured loan receipts. Repayment evidence via banking channels was accepted. Legal precedents like CIT Vs Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji were cited to support no addition when loans were repaid in subsequent years. Cases like ACIT Vs Naresh Nemchand Shah and Rajhans Construction (P) Ltd. were referenced for similar views. The decision in CIT Vs. Amber Tradecorp (P) ltd. emphasized no addition u/s 68 if loans were repaid. Precedents like Rohini Builders and USHA STUD AGRICULTURAL FARM LTD. were cited to support the assessee's position. The addition of unsecured loans was disallowed, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
