Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
