Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 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 the legality of additions based on a diary seized from a third party. The Tribunal held that the presumption u/s 132(4A) of the Act applies to the person in possession of incriminating material and cannot be extended to a third party without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The failure to provide cross-examination opportunity to the assessee based on third party statements led to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding unexplained expenses on a mobile purchase and investments in vehicles. Addition of interest income and unexplained investments were deleted due to lack of supporting evidence. The Tribunal further deleted additions related to unexplained expenditure on spectacles, mobile phones, marriage expenses, and foreign currency purchases. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and upheld the principles of natural justice throughout its decisions.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the legality of additions based on a diary seized from a third party. The Tribunal held that the presumption u/s 132(4A) of the Act applies to the person in possession of incriminating material and cannot be extended to a third party without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The failure to provide cross-examination opportunity to the assessee based on third party statements led to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding unexplained expenses on a mobile purchase and investments in vehicles. Addition of interest income and unexplained investments were deleted due to lack of supporting evidence. The Tribunal further deleted additions related to unexplained expenditure on spectacles, mobile phones, marriage expenses, and foreign currency purchases. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and upheld the principles of natural justice throughout its decisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
