Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 
