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 was allowed to claim depreciation on assets held in the name of directors, based on the principle of beneficial ownership recognized by the Supreme Court. The assessee had possession, control, and dominion over the assets used for business purposes, satisfying the broader interpretation of "owner" u/s 32. The Tribunal also deleted the 20% disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer, citing lack of concrete evidence and justification through increased turnover and consistent profit margins. Regarding the protective addition u/s 68 for unsecured loans, the Tribunal noted the assessee's substantial evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Assessing Officer's failure to conduct further investigations rendered the protective addition unjustified. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on all grounds, emphasizing the principles of beneficial ownership, evidence-based disallowances, and substantive assessments preceding protective assessments.
The assessee was allowed to claim depreciation on assets held in the name of directors, based on the principle of beneficial ownership recognized by the Supreme Court. The assessee had possession, control, and dominion over the assets used for business purposes, satisfying the broader interpretation of "owner" u/s 32. The Tribunal also deleted the 20% disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer, citing lack of concrete evidence and justification through increased turnover and consistent profit margins. Regarding the protective addition u/s 68 for unsecured loans, the Tribunal noted the assessee's substantial evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Assessing Officer's failure to conduct further investigations rendered the protective addition unjustified. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on all grounds, emphasizing the principles of beneficial ownership, evidence-based disallowances, and substantive assessments preceding protective assessments.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.