Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The assessee received Rs. 125 lacs in cash from SGCFCL for facilitation work, which was not recorded in the books. The assessee claimed the amount was paid to 2500 shareholders, but failed to provide evidence of such payments. The onus was on the assessee to prove the impugned payment did not constitute income, which the assessee failed to discharge. The assessment was based on incriminating material and the assessee's statement admitting receipt of cash payment. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessment, rejecting the assessee's arguments.
The assessee received Rs. 125 lacs in cash from SGCFCL for facilitation work, which was not recorded in the books. The assessee claimed the amount was paid to 2500 shareholders, but failed to provide evidence of such payments. The onus was on the assessee to prove the impugned payment did not constitute income, which the assessee failed to discharge. The assessment was based on incriminating material and the assessee's statement admitting receipt of cash payment. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessment, rejecting the assessee's arguments.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
