Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
261 to 280 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessing officer made an addition u/s 41(1) on the grounds that the assessee had ceased trading liabilities, even though the assessee did not respond to notices/summons issued u/ss 133(6)/131. The assessee contended that no remission or cessation of liabilities had occurred and no benefit was received, hence the liability cannot be considered income. The ITAT, relying on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in CIT vs. Narendra Mohan Mathur, held that the onus is on the assessing officer to conclusively prove that the liabilities ceased to exist or the assessee obtained any amount/benefit concerning such liabilities. As the assessing officer failed to discharge this onus, the ITAT directed deletion of the addition made u/s 41(1).
The assessing officer made an addition u/s 41(1) on the grounds that the assessee had ceased trading liabilities, even though the assessee did not respond to notices/summons issued u/ss 133(6)/131. The assessee contended that no remission or cessation of liabilities had occurred and no benefit was received, hence the liability cannot be considered income. The ITAT, relying on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in CIT vs. Narendra Mohan Mathur, held that the onus is on the assessing officer to conclusively prove that the liabilities ceased to exist or the assessee obtained any amount/benefit concerning such liabilities. As the assessing officer failed to discharge this onus, the ITAT directed deletion of the addition made u/s 41(1).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
