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...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
201 to 220 of 97809 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of addition u/s 69A with reference to cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee failed to establish the source of these deposits into a bank account, contrary to RBI and Government directives. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee, engaged in the dhall mill business, had consistent cash sales with no abnormal increase during demonetization. The assessee provided evidence of cash on hand before demonetization and claimed to have received demonetized currency from customers post the specified date. The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was genuine and acceptable, considering the nature of the business and submitted evidence. The AO and CIT(A) were criticized for not duly considering the relevant submissions, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of addition u/s 69A with reference to cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee failed to establish the source of these deposits into a bank account, contrary to RBI and Government directives. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee, engaged in the dhall mill business, had consistent cash sales with no abnormal increase during demonetization. The assessee provided evidence of cash on hand before demonetization and claimed to have received demonetized currency from customers post the specified date. The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was genuine and acceptable, considering the nature of the business and submitted evidence. The AO and CIT(A) were criticized for not duly considering the relevant submissions, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
