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...
Legality of the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the gain on sale of agricultural land, based on the alleged understatement of consideration paid. The key points are: The AO failed to follow proper cross-examination procedures under the Evidence Act, relying solely on statements without allowing cross-examination. The Supreme Court has held that while the Evidence Act does not strictly apply to income tax proceedings, its principles can be applied. The registered sale deed carries a presumption of genuineness, and the AO did not rebut this with concrete evidence. The AO did not examine other relevant witnesses or consider circle rates or comparable land values. The AO also failed to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer for value ascertainment. Based on these lapses, the addition made solely on unsubstantiated statements was unjustified, and the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition.
Legality of the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the gain on sale of agricultural land, based on the alleged understatement of consideration paid. The key points are: The AO failed to follow proper cross-examination procedures under the Evidence Act, relying solely on statements without allowing cross-examination. The Supreme Court has held that while the Evidence Act does not strictly apply to income tax proceedings, its principles can be applied. The registered sale deed carries a presumption of genuineness, and the AO did not rebut this with concrete evidence. The AO did not examine other relevant witnesses or consider circle rates or comparable land values. The AO also failed to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer for value ascertainment. Based on these lapses, the addition made solely on unsubstantiated statements was unjustified, and the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
