Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The assessing officer made protective additions u/ss 69, 69C, and 68 for amounts already considered by the firm where the assessee was a partner. However, the settlement commission's order dated 03.12.2020, containing entries from serial numbers 1 to 2402 for which additions were made by the assessing officer on a protective basis, was not disputed by the revenue. Since the additions accepted by the firm were not contested by the revenue, they cannot be sustained in the assessee's hands on a protective basis. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee stands allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The assessing officer made protective additions u/ss 69, 69C, and 68 for amounts already considered by the firm where the assessee was a partner. However, the settlement commission's order dated 03.12.2020, containing entries from serial numbers 1 to 2402 for which additions were made by the assessing officer on a protective basis, was not disputed by the revenue. Since the additions accepted by the firm were not contested by the revenue, they cannot be sustained in the assessee's hands on a protective basis. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee stands allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.