Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the validity of reopening assessment under section 147 and addition under section 69A. The Tribunal held that the AO had sufficient information from DDIT indicating unexplained bank deposits, justifying the belief of income escapement. The assessee's claim of lack of AO's consideration was unsubstantiated and rejected. The Tribunal also dismissed the limitation argument due to the extension granted by TOLA. Regarding the addition under section 69A for cash deposits, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanations and submitted documents credible, highlighting that the books were audited and no discrepancies were reported. As the revenue failed to challenge the evidence, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deeming the addition by the AO as unsustainable.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the validity of reopening assessment under section 147 and addition under section 69A. The Tribunal held that the AO had sufficient information from DDIT indicating unexplained bank deposits, justifying the belief of income escapement. The assessee's claim of lack of AO's consideration was unsubstantiated and rejected. The Tribunal also dismissed the limitation argument due to the extension granted by TOLA. Regarding the addition under section 69A for cash deposits, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanations and submitted documents credible, highlighting that the books were audited and no discrepancies were reported. As the revenue failed to challenge the evidence, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deeming the addition by the AO as unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.