Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 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 upheld the addition u/s 68 as the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions with Shri Singla due to lack of documentary evidence like ITR, Bank Statement, and confirmation. The First Appellate Authority's decision to confirm the addition was deemed appropriate given the absence of support from the assessee. Regarding the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) for the variance between fair market value and actual consideration paid for shares, the Tribunal upheld the AO's decision based on the fair market value calculation in accordance with relevant sections of the Income Tax Act. The First Appellate Authority's confirmation of this addition was also upheld as justified and not warranting interference.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 68 as the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions with Shri Singla due to lack of documentary evidence like ITR, Bank Statement, and confirmation. The First Appellate Authority's decision to confirm the addition was deemed appropriate given the absence of support from the assessee. Regarding the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) for the variance between fair market value and actual consideration paid for shares, the Tribunal upheld the AO's decision based on the fair market value calculation in accordance with relevant sections of the Income Tax Act. The First Appellate Authority's confirmation of this addition was also upheld as justified and not warranting interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
