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 assessee received share application money and premium from a company that admitted to providing accommodation entries. The AO rejected the assessee's claim, citing the non-appearance of the director as insufficient grounds. The ITAT held that the assessee failed to rebut the AO's finding that the share applicant company received cash from an accommodation entry provider and transferred it to the assessee. The accommodation entry provider's statement corroborated the initiation of assessment proceedings. The AO did not accept the assessee's procedural evidence, questioning how a newly incorporated company could command such a premium. The assessee failed to provide details of its assets and business prospects or produce the share applicant company's directors. Both authorities concluded that the investment was bogus, warranting treatment as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The assessee received share application money and premium from a company that admitted to providing accommodation entries. The AO rejected the assessee's claim, citing the non-appearance of the director as insufficient grounds. The ITAT held that the assessee failed to rebut the AO's finding that the share applicant company received cash from an accommodation entry provider and transferred it to the assessee. The accommodation entry provider's statement corroborated the initiation of assessment proceedings. The AO did not accept the assessee's procedural evidence, questioning how a newly incorporated company could command such a premium. The assessee failed to provide details of its assets and business prospects or produce the share applicant company's directors. Both authorities concluded that the investment was bogus, warranting treatment as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.