Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
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 ...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1341 to 1360 of 96208 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
