Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
The assessee received an unsecured loan of Rs. 1 crore from M/s Betala Investment Finance Ltd., which was later transferred to Lahoti Holding Ltd. due to a name change. The authorities accepted the explanation regarding the source of the loan. Regarding stock valuation, the assessee followed a consistent method, and the authorities upheld the assessee's valuation. The authorities also accepted the assessee's explanation for the difference in raw material consumption, considering it a clerical mistake. The addition u/s 41(1) for cessation of liability was deleted as the revenue could not establish remission of income. The disallowance of interest paid above 12% on unsecured loans was rejected, following the principle of consistency as the same rates were allowed in earlier years. The addition based on the stock statement submitted to the bank for obtaining credit limits was deleted, relying on judicial precedents that such statements cannot be the basis for additions u/s 69B.
The assessee received an unsecured loan of Rs. 1 crore from M/s Betala Investment Finance Ltd., which was later transferred to Lahoti Holding Ltd. due to a name change. The authorities accepted the explanation regarding the source of the loan. Regarding stock valuation, the assessee followed a consistent method, and the authorities upheld the assessee's valuation. The authorities also accepted the assessee's explanation for the difference in raw material consumption, considering it a clerical mistake. The addition u/s 41(1) for cessation of liability was deleted as the revenue could not establish remission of income. The disallowance of interest paid above 12% on unsecured loans was rejected, following the principle of consistency as the same rates were allowed in earlier years. The addition based on the stock statement submitted to the bank for obtaining credit limits was deleted, relying on judicial precedents that such statements cannot be the basis for additions u/s 69B.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
