Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 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 
