Promissory note presumption of consideration survives blank-signature and income-tax non-disclosure objections when admissions and attesting evidence ...
Charitable registration cancellation: limitation and jurisdiction upheld, but withdrawal quashed under discontinued provisions for skill-development e...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1421 to 1440 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.