Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
