Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
