Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
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 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
