Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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 considered unexplained cash deposits...
ITAT addressed cash deposits during demonetization. Found lack of evidence for certain expenses. Ruled Section 115BBE for higher rate of tax not retroactive.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The Appellate Tribunal considered unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal noted the assessee's agricultural income and expenses but found insufficient evidence of various expenses. Adjusting claimed expenses, a portion of the unexplained cash remained unexplained. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal ruled that Section 115BBE couldn't be applied retroactively as it came into force after the search. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held the addition u/s 115BBE was unsustainable. Therefore, Section 115BBE was deemed inapplicable in the case, favoring the assessee.
The Appellate Tribunal considered unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal noted the assessee's agricultural income and expenses but found insufficient evidence of various expenses. Adjusting claimed expenses, a portion of the unexplained cash remained unexplained. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal ruled that Section 115BBE couldn't be applied retroactively as it came into force after the search. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held the addition u/s 115BBE was unsustainable. Therefore, Section 115BBE was deemed inapplicable in the case, favoring the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.