Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The Appellate Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 51.20 lacs as unexplained investment u/ss 69 or 56(2)(x)/6(2)(vii) was unjustified as there was no evidence of actual payment to vendors. Section 69 requires actual investment, not just stamp value. The lower authorities erred in making the addition, which is not taxable for a partnership firm u/s 56(2)(x) for the relevant assessment year. The decision favored the assessee, and the appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 51.20 lacs as unexplained investment u/ss 69 or 56(2)(x)/6(2)(vii) was unjustified as there was no evidence of actual payment to vendors. Section 69 requires actual investment, not just stamp value. The lower authorities erred in making the addition, which is not taxable for a partnership firm u/s 56(2)(x) for the relevant assessment year. The decision favored the assessee, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
