Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 
