PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
CIT(A) deleted addition on unaccounted business income, accepting assessee's retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4). CIT(A) agreed cash payment of 60 crores by assessee and group entities, over banking channel payment of 50 crores, was from surplus cash, not suppressed sales. CIT(A) observed no legal requirement to produce evidence only during seizure, relying on judicial precedents. CIT(A) elaborated on transactions, noting taxing impugned amount as unaccounted income would lead to double taxation. CIT(A) reconciled cash found during search with completed books, supported by GST returns and bills/vouchers. CIT(A) analyzed sales data from GST returns and books, finding no abnormality. CIT(A) accepted retraction by key person, backed by audited books and reasons. AO's conclusions were incomprehensible, brushing aside substantial evidence without cogent reasons. Statement alone cannot constitute incriminating material u/s 153A. CIT(A)'s decision was justified.
CIT(A) deleted addition on unaccounted business income, accepting assessee's retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4). CIT(A) agreed cash payment of 60 crores by assessee and group entities, over banking channel payment of 50 crores, was from surplus cash, not suppressed sales. CIT(A) observed no legal requirement to produce evidence only during seizure, relying on judicial precedents. CIT(A) elaborated on transactions, noting taxing impugned amount as unaccounted income would lead to double taxation. CIT(A) reconciled cash found during search with completed books, supported by GST returns and bills/vouchers. CIT(A) analyzed sales data from GST returns and books, finding no abnormality. CIT(A) accepted retraction by key person, backed by audited books and reasons. AO's conclusions were incomprehensible, brushing aside substantial evidence without cogent reasons. Statement alone cannot constitute incriminating material u/s 153A. CIT(A)'s decision was justified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
