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...
Distinction between Section 69 and Section 56(2) regarding unexplained investment and gift. Section 69 requires the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee made investments not recorded in books, and the assessee's inability to explain the nature and source. In this case, the payment was made by another person, not the assessee, and the source was satisfactorily explained with evidence. Hence, Section 69 is inapplicable. Section 56(2) regarding taxability as gift was never discussed by authorities. Revenue cannot make a fresh case or improve the order. Documents confirming loan and repayment cannot be denied. Mere lack of repayment capacity does not make it a gift when parties confirm it as a loan secured by joint ownership. Addition u/s 69C for car purchase was rightly deleted as the source was admitted to be from another person's bank account, not the assessee's undisclosed expenditure. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Distinction between Section 69 and Section 56(2) regarding unexplained investment and gift. Section 69 requires the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee made investments not recorded in books, and the assessee's inability to explain the nature and source. In this case, the payment was made by another person, not the assessee, and the source was satisfactorily explained with evidence. Hence, Section 69 is inapplicable. Section 56(2) regarding taxability as gift was never discussed by authorities. Revenue cannot make a fresh case or improve the order. Documents confirming loan and repayment cannot be denied. Mere lack of repayment capacity does not make it a gift when parties confirm it as a loan secured by joint ownership. Addition u/s 69C for car purchase was rightly deleted as the source was admitted to be from another person's bank account, not the assessee's undisclosed expenditure. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.