Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeals, which exceeded 400 days, due to unexplained cash deposits and protective additions made in the hands of the assessee. The assessee believed the protective addition would be deleted after the substantive addition was removed by the tribunal. The delay was attributed to bonafide reasons, as the assessee acted on advice and filed a rectification application, showing no malafide intention. The Tribunal held that the income from unexplained cash deposits should be assessed in the hands of the society, not the individual, and deleted the protective additions made in the assessee's hands.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeals, which exceeded 400 days, due to unexplained cash deposits and protective additions made in the hands of the assessee. The assessee believed the protective addition would be deleted after the substantive addition was removed by the tribunal. The delay was attributed to bonafide reasons, as the assessee acted on advice and filed a rectification application, showing no malafide intention. The Tribunal held that the income from unexplained cash deposits should be assessed in the hands of the society, not the individual, and deleted the protective additions made in the assessee's hands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
