Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
The appellant could not establish the source for cash deposits during demonetization. The Appellate Tribunal held that sales cannot be rejected solely based on higher sales compared to previous periods. The explanation of receiving cash from customers for jewelry sales was considered reasonable. The appellant provided evidence of sufficient cash withdrawals before demonetization, supporting the cash deposits. The Tribunal found the explanation satisfactory, citing a precedent. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions by the Commissioner, dismissing the revenue's appeal.
The appellant could not establish the source for cash deposits during demonetization. The Appellate Tribunal held that sales cannot be rejected solely based on higher sales compared to previous periods. The explanation of receiving cash from customers for jewelry sales was considered reasonable. The appellant provided evidence of sufficient cash withdrawals before demonetization, supporting the cash deposits. The Tribunal found the explanation satisfactory, citing a precedent. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions by the Commissioner, dismissing the revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
