Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 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 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
