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 addition made u/s 68 for bogus share application money receipts was solely based on the statement of an unrelated third party, Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, recorded during a search conducted at his premises. This statement was later retracted. The assessee submitted necessary evidence regarding the receipt of share application money, including share application forms, board resolutions, PAN cards, bank statements, income tax returns, master data, and confirmations and affidavits from the investor companies' directors. This evidence proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. However, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) made the addition without considering the evidence and the provisions of law applicable for the relevant year. The addition u/s 68 can only be made if the assessee does not offer an explanation or if the explanation is unsatisfactory to the Assessing Officer, which was not the case here. The ITAT relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. and the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision in Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd., allowing the assessee's appeal.
The addition made u/s 68 for bogus share application money receipts was solely based on the statement of an unrelated third party, Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, recorded during a search conducted at his premises. This statement was later retracted. The assessee submitted necessary evidence regarding the receipt of share application money, including share application forms, board resolutions, PAN cards, bank statements, income tax returns, master data, and confirmations and affidavits from the investor companies' directors. This evidence proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. However, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) made the addition without considering the evidence and the provisions of law applicable for the relevant year. The addition u/s 68 can only be made if the assessee does not offer an explanation or if the explanation is unsatisfactory to the Assessing Officer, which was not the case here. The ITAT relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. and the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision in Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd., allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
