Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the addition u/s 69 concerning unexplained investment. The issue stemmed from an agreement displaying the individual name of the assessee, a director of the company, instead of the company's name. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting a genuine mistake rectified later. Section 69 criteria were examined, requiring unrecorded investments with no satisfactory explanation. The Tribunal found the provided explanation credible and supported by evidence, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the addition u/s 69 concerning unexplained investment. The issue stemmed from an agreement displaying the individual name of the assessee, a director of the company, instead of the company's name. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting a genuine mistake rectified later. Section 69 criteria were examined, requiring unrecorded investments with no satisfactory explanation. The Tribunal found the provided explanation credible and supported by evidence, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
