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...
Reassessment proceedings were challenged regarding unexplained cash credit u/s 68 for an unsecured loan. The loan was treated as bogus based on a statement by Mukesh Banka. However, the appellant submitted supporting documents, including bank statements, proving the genuineness of the loan transaction. The authorities rejected these documents without proper verification, relying solely on assumptions and probabilities. The Tribunal held that documents cannot be discarded without examining their genuineness, especially when they clearly demonstrate a genuine transaction through banking channels. The loan was duly repaid, and no transaction occurred with Mukesh Banka or his group. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee successfully disclosed the source of income, and the reopening notice was invalid as there was no basis for believing income had escaped assessment, mere suspicion being insufficient.
Reassessment proceedings were challenged regarding unexplained cash credit u/s 68 for an unsecured loan. The loan was treated as bogus based on a statement by Mukesh Banka. However, the appellant submitted supporting documents, including bank statements, proving the genuineness of the loan transaction. The authorities rejected these documents without proper verification, relying solely on assumptions and probabilities. The Tribunal held that documents cannot be discarded without examining their genuineness, especially when they clearly demonstrate a genuine transaction through banking channels. The loan was duly repaid, and no transaction occurred with Mukesh Banka or his group. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee successfully disclosed the source of income, and the reopening notice was invalid as there was no basis for believing income had escaped assessment, mere suspicion being insufficient.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
