Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the validity of reopening assessment u/s 147 and addition u/s 68. The AO had sufficient material to believe the assessee introduced unaccounted income as bogus share capital, leading to income escapement. The notice u/s 147 was upheld as valid. The assessee failed to prove creditworthiness of share applicant or transaction genuineness. AO's addition u/s 68 was deemed justified, concluding the assessee channeled its own funds through investor companies. The assessee engaged in dubious activities, introducing unaccounted money through questionable transactions. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld, ruling against the assessee.
The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the validity of reopening assessment u/s 147 and addition u/s 68. The AO had sufficient material to believe the assessee introduced unaccounted income as bogus share capital, leading to income escapement. The notice u/s 147 was upheld as valid. The assessee failed to prove creditworthiness of share applicant or transaction genuineness. AO's addition u/s 68 was deemed justified, concluding the assessee channeled its own funds through investor companies. The assessee engaged in dubious activities, introducing unaccounted money through questionable transactions. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld, ruling against the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
