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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
The assessee challenged the addition made u/s 69A for non-payment of advance tax, claiming the assessment proceedings were initiated based on wrong information. The Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, examined the material and found that the Assessing Officer erroneously initiated proceedings u/s 148, assuming the assessee had purchased an immovable property for Rs. 45 lakhs from Shri Madhava Gatti. However, the assessee produced the sale deed showing the purchase was from Mr. Madhava Gatti for Rs. 31 lakhs and provided the source of funds as a loan from Vijaya Bank. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the basis for the addition did not survive and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A, allowing the assessee's appeal.
The assessee challenged the addition made u/s 69A for non-payment of advance tax, claiming the assessment proceedings were initiated based on wrong information. The Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, examined the material and found that the Assessing Officer erroneously initiated proceedings u/s 148, assuming the assessee had purchased an immovable property for Rs. 45 lakhs from Shri Madhava Gatti. However, the assessee produced the sale deed showing the purchase was from Mr. Madhava Gatti for Rs. 31 lakhs and provided the source of funds as a loan from Vijaya Bank. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the basis for the addition did not survive and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
