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 addressed undisclosed sales and net profit determination. The CIT(A) limited the addition to the net profit element, with the Revenue arguing for a 12.5% rate instead of 8%. Incriminating material was found during a search at the director's residence, indicating off-the-books sales. The Tribunal ruled that a higher net profit rate must be justified based on business nature and facts, not arbitrarily. The Revenue failed to provide a reasonable basis for the 12.5% rate, and the High Court decision cited did not align with the assessee's activities. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed undisclosed sales and net profit determination. The CIT(A) limited the addition to the net profit element, with the Revenue arguing for a 12.5% rate instead of 8%. Incriminating material was found during a search at the director's residence, indicating off-the-books sales. The Tribunal ruled that a higher net profit rate must be justified based on business nature and facts, not arbitrarily. The Revenue failed to provide a reasonable basis for the 12.5% rate, and the High Court decision cited did not align with the assessee's activities. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.