Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and admitted additional evidence. The assessee did not disclose income from other sources, which was treated as undisclosed income and taxed u/s 115BBE. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F in the return filed u/s 148, though no such claim was made in the original return. The ITAT noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard and was passing through a difficult time due to the demise of his wife. The assessee could not produce details before the Assessing Officer (AO) but filed additional evidence before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have considered the application u/r 46A and admitted the additional evidence crucial for disposal of the appeal. The matter was set aside to the AO to decide based on the additional evidence and pass an order in accordance with law, without any reflection on the merits of the dispute.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and admitted additional evidence. The assessee did not disclose income from other sources, which was treated as undisclosed income and taxed u/s 115BBE. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F in the return filed u/s 148, though no such claim was made in the original return. The ITAT noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard and was passing through a difficult time due to the demise of his wife. The assessee could not produce details before the Assessing Officer (AO) but filed additional evidence before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have considered the application u/r 46A and admitted the additional evidence crucial for disposal of the appeal. The matter was set aside to the AO to decide based on the additional evidence and pass an order in accordance with law, without any reflection on the merits of the dispute.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.