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 Appellate Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains due to off-market cash purchase of shares. The taxpayer's claim for deduction u/s 10(38) was disallowed as the purchase payments lacked verifiable proof through normal banking channels. Despite holding the shares for over a year and paying STT on sale, the exemption was denied due to unverifiable cash purchases. The Tribunal found the transactions suspicious, considering the lack of credible documentation and the taxpayer's atypical share investment behavior. The decision affirmed the CIT(A)'s ruling against the taxpayer, emphasizing the need for proper sourcing evidence in such cases.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains due to off-market cash purchase of shares. The taxpayer's claim for deduction u/s 10(38) was disallowed as the purchase payments lacked verifiable proof through normal banking channels. Despite holding the shares for over a year and paying STT on sale, the exemption was denied due to unverifiable cash purchases. The Tribunal found the transactions suspicious, considering the lack of credible documentation and the taxpayer's atypical share investment behavior. The decision affirmed the CIT(A)'s ruling against the taxpayer, emphasizing the need for proper sourcing evidence in such cases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
