Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 and the applicability of Section 115BBE for taxing such additions. The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices u/s 133(6) to verify the cash advances received from customers, with 69% of the notices duly served. While some parties confirmed the advances, the AO relied on a few negative replies to reject the entire amount as unexplained money. The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all relevant details, supported by audited books of accounts, invoices for purchases and sales. The sales were accepted, and the source of funds for those sales cannot be treated as unexplained u/s 68 when the details were furnished. Applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the Tribunal ruled that once the assessee supports the contention with evidence, the department cannot unreasonably reject the explanation without contrary evidence. The fact that notices were issued and parties confirmed the advances is prima facie evidence supporting the assessee's claim. Therefore, the cash advances received from customers before the stock receipts, where identity and sales were not disputed, cannot be added as unexplained money when all details were provided. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.
Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 and the applicability of Section 115BBE for taxing such additions. The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices u/s 133(6) to verify the cash advances received from customers, with 69% of the notices duly served. While some parties confirmed the advances, the AO relied on a few negative replies to reject the entire amount as unexplained money. The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all relevant details, supported by audited books of accounts, invoices for purchases and sales. The sales were accepted, and the source of funds for those sales cannot be treated as unexplained u/s 68 when the details were furnished. Applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the Tribunal ruled that once the assessee supports the contention with evidence, the department cannot unreasonably reject the explanation without contrary evidence. The fact that notices were issued and parties confirmed the advances is prima facie evidence supporting the assessee's claim. Therefore, the cash advances received from customers before the stock receipts, where identity and sales were not disputed, cannot be added as unexplained money when all details were provided. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
