Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Excess cash and stock found during survey proceedings were treated as income from undisclosed sources, liable for taxation u/s 115BBE. The Assessing Officer (AO) ordered taxation but failed to compute tax per Section 115BBE, rendering the order prejudicial to revenue interests. Regarding excess stock, the assessee's justification was rejected, and the unexplained portion was added to income. However, the AO consciously did not apply Section 115BBE, taking a plausible view that the income emerged from business. The Tribunal considered the AO's order prejudicial for not charging tax u/s 115BBE on the disclosed income but found no issue with the treatment of excess stock income as business income, as the AO applied their mind. The assessee's ground was partly allowed.
Excess cash and stock found during survey proceedings were treated as income from undisclosed sources, liable for taxation u/s 115BBE. The Assessing Officer (AO) ordered taxation but failed to compute tax per Section 115BBE, rendering the order prejudicial to revenue interests. Regarding excess stock, the assessee's justification was rejected, and the unexplained portion was added to income. However, the AO consciously did not apply Section 115BBE, taking a plausible view that the income emerged from business. The Tribunal considered the AO's order prejudicial for not charging tax u/s 115BBE on the disclosed income but found no issue with the treatment of excess stock income as business income, as the AO applied their mind. The assessee's ground was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
