Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rejection of books of accounts u/s 145 - Addition u/ss 68/69A with 115BBE - cash deposited during demonetization as unexplained credit. The Assessing Officer did not reject the books or pass an order u/s 144. The CIT(A) rejected the books based on mere surmise and conjecture, without satisfying the conditions u/s 145(3) or pointing out defects. The assessee produced all required details, and the authorities did not find the records defective. Mere suspicion on sales of excavated stone, with part amount considered explained and part unexplained for the same records, is not a valid reason to invoke Section 145(3). Section 145(3) can only be invoked when accounts are incorrect/incomplete, accounting methods u/s 145(1) are not followed, or accounting standards u/s 145(2) are not followed. None of these conditions were satisfied, and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) instead of Section 144, which is incorrect. Treating part of cash sales as unexplained money u/s 69A or unexplained cash credits u/s 68 is also incorrect when the sales transactions are already recorded in books and reflected in the profit and loss account. Cash deposited from sales proceeds cannot be considered u/ss 68 or 69A.
Rejection of books of accounts u/s 145 - Addition u/ss 68/69A with 115BBE - cash deposited during demonetization as unexplained credit. The Assessing Officer did not reject the books or pass an order u/s 144. The CIT(A) rejected the books based on mere surmise and conjecture, without satisfying the conditions u/s 145(3) or pointing out defects. The assessee produced all required details, and the authorities did not find the records defective. Mere suspicion on sales of excavated stone, with part amount considered explained and part unexplained for the same records, is not a valid reason to invoke Section 145(3). Section 145(3) can only be invoked when accounts are incorrect/incomplete, accounting methods u/s 145(1) are not followed, or accounting standards u/s 145(2) are not followed. None of these conditions were satisfied, and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) instead of Section 144, which is incorrect. Treating part of cash sales as unexplained money u/s 69A or unexplained cash credits u/s 68 is also incorrect when the sales transactions are already recorded in books and reflected in the profit and loss account. Cash deposited from sales proceeds cannot be considered u/ss 68 or 69A.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
