Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.