Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Additions u/s 153A solely based on a sketchy statement of an accountant u/s 132(4), which in turn is based on a confessional statement of a director in a previous search, are impermissible. No incriminating material was discovered during the search in the assessee's case. The statement of the director in the previous search cannot be regarded as incriminating material found in the course of the assessee's search. Mere confessional statements without other material are unsustainable in law. In the absence of incriminating material found during the search, the legal foundation for making additions u/s 153A in unabated assessments does not exist, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Builwell Pvt. Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd. and Anand Kumar Jain (HUF). Additions made u/s 153A are not permissible. The assessee's appeal is allowed.
Additions u/s 153A solely based on a sketchy statement of an accountant u/s 132(4), which in turn is based on a confessional statement of a director in a previous search, are impermissible. No incriminating material was discovered during the search in the assessee's case. The statement of the director in the previous search cannot be regarded as incriminating material found in the course of the assessee's search. Mere confessional statements without other material are unsustainable in law. In the absence of incriminating material found during the search, the legal foundation for making additions u/s 153A in unabated assessments does not exist, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Builwell Pvt. Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd. and Anand Kumar Jain (HUF). Additions made u/s 153A are not permissible. The assessee's appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.