Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The Appellate Tribunal held that the case was selected for "limited scrutiny" based on large cash deposits and property transfers. The addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) for the difference between Fair Market Value and actual consideration was not justified. The addition did not relate to the basis for limited scrutiny. The Tribunal cited M/s. Suraj Diamond Dealers Pvt. Ltd., stating that the AO can only go beyond limited scrutiny reasons with approval. The AO's addition was deemed erroneous as it was not part of the limited scrutiny reasons, thus the appeal grounds were allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the case was selected for "limited scrutiny" based on large cash deposits and property transfers. The addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) for the difference between Fair Market Value and actual consideration was not justified. The addition did not relate to the basis for limited scrutiny. The Tribunal cited M/s. Suraj Diamond Dealers Pvt. Ltd., stating that the AO can only go beyond limited scrutiny reasons with approval. The AO's addition was deemed erroneous as it was not part of the limited scrutiny reasons, thus the appeal grounds were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.