Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The assessee offered presumptive tax u/s 44AD on contract receipts, declaring net profit at 15% except for one year. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A, treating the entire amount as income. However, the Tribunal held that only the profit element, estimated at 8% of cash deposits, should be added, as the nexus between contract receipts and cash deposits was not established. Regarding agricultural income, consistently disclosed by the assessee, the Tribunal directed partial allowance in the absence of complete details. The addition for short-term capital gain u/s 50C, due to the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value, was upheld. However, the Tribunal allowed 75% of the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee for compound wall and development expenses. The Tribunal's decision strikes a balance, partially allowing the assessee's claims based on the facts and legal provisions.
The assessee offered presumptive tax u/s 44AD on contract receipts, declaring net profit at 15% except for one year. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A, treating the entire amount as income. However, the Tribunal held that only the profit element, estimated at 8% of cash deposits, should be added, as the nexus between contract receipts and cash deposits was not established. Regarding agricultural income, consistently disclosed by the assessee, the Tribunal directed partial allowance in the absence of complete details. The addition for short-term capital gain u/s 50C, due to the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value, was upheld. However, the Tribunal allowed 75% of the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee for compound wall and development expenses. The Tribunal's decision strikes a balance, partially allowing the assessee's claims based on the facts and legal provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
