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 failed to file income tax returns and produce books of accounts. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed a detailed order computing income after obtaining inputs from the assessee, cross-verifying with suppliers, and verifying findings by the Assessing Officer. Although based on assumptions and estimates due to the assessee's lack of transparency, the computation cannot be faulted as the assessee conceded it before the CIT(Appeals). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee cannot argue against the computation after conceding it, and decided against the assessee regarding the unexplained deposit u/s 69A. Regarding the estimation of net profit on cash deposits, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(Appeals)'s correct estimation of taxable net profit instead of considering the entire cash deposit as income.
The assessee failed to file income tax returns and produce books of accounts. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed a detailed order computing income after obtaining inputs from the assessee, cross-verifying with suppliers, and verifying findings by the Assessing Officer. Although based on assumptions and estimates due to the assessee's lack of transparency, the computation cannot be faulted as the assessee conceded it before the CIT(Appeals). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee cannot argue against the computation after conceding it, and decided against the assessee regarding the unexplained deposit u/s 69A. Regarding the estimation of net profit on cash deposits, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(Appeals)'s correct estimation of taxable net profit instead of considering the entire cash deposit as income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.