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...
The assessee received cash credits which were treated as unexplained income u/s 68 by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, observing that apart from the first two payments made on the transaction date, the third payment was received in advance by the assessee through banking channels. The Revenue only raised doubts about the sales bills but did not dispute the receipt of money. The assessee furnished stock statements, and the Revenue did not raise any doubts. Since the sales transaction was declared as revenue receipt, the Tribunal found no infirmity in deleting the addition u/s 68. Regarding the cash deposit addition, the assessee submitted relevant records like sales register, purchase register, stock statement, cash book, bank book, and bank statements. The AO made the addition u/s 68 solely because the assessee showed cash sales on a single day, without appreciating that it was the day of demonetization announcement when people anxiously converted old currency notes into other forms like gold. In the absence of any material to doubt the availability of gold stock, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the cash deposit addition, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
The assessee received cash credits which were treated as unexplained income u/s 68 by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, observing that apart from the first two payments made on the transaction date, the third payment was received in advance by the assessee through banking channels. The Revenue only raised doubts about the sales bills but did not dispute the receipt of money. The assessee furnished stock statements, and the Revenue did not raise any doubts. Since the sales transaction was declared as revenue receipt, the Tribunal found no infirmity in deleting the addition u/s 68. Regarding the cash deposit addition, the assessee submitted relevant records like sales register, purchase register, stock statement, cash book, bank book, and bank statements. The AO made the addition u/s 68 solely because the assessee showed cash sales on a single day, without appreciating that it was the day of demonetization announcement when people anxiously converted old currency notes into other forms like gold. In the absence of any material to doubt the availability of gold stock, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the cash deposit addition, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.