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...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
