Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered an addition u/s 69 concerning a difference in agreed and actual deal value, attributed to unexplained source of stamp duty payment during property registration. The Tribunal noted the relevant legal provisions (u/s 50C, 43CA, 56(2)(vii)) applicable to such property transactions. It emphasized that the AO must apply these provisions correctly and establish any violation by the taxpayer. In this case, as the taxpayer was not required to maintain accounts u/s 44AA and there was no concrete evidence against her, the provisions u/s 68 to 69B were wrongly invoked by the AO, later changed to u/s 69A by CIT (A). The Tribunal found the taxpayer's explanation reasonable and directed deletion of the addition, as the lower authorities had misapplied the law. The appeal of the taxpayer was allowed.
The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered an addition u/s 69 concerning a difference in agreed and actual deal value, attributed to unexplained source of stamp duty payment during property registration. The Tribunal noted the relevant legal provisions (u/s 50C, 43CA, 56(2)(vii)) applicable to such property transactions. It emphasized that the AO must apply these provisions correctly and establish any violation by the taxpayer. In this case, as the taxpayer was not required to maintain accounts u/s 44AA and there was no concrete evidence against her, the provisions u/s 68 to 69B were wrongly invoked by the AO, later changed to u/s 69A by CIT (A). The Tribunal found the taxpayer's explanation reasonable and directed deletion of the addition, as the lower authorities had misapplied the law. The appeal of the taxpayer was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
