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...
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) was added by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that the assessee, a director and substantial shareholder in a private company, had received a loan from the company. The assessee contended that the provisions apply only to actual cash payments, not journal entries. The Tribunal observed that the addition was based on advances presented as mere journal entries, suggesting no actual loan was received. The assessee consistently explained this before the authorities, but it was not adequately examined. The Tribunal held that since the assessee's contention of no sum being received, only a journal entry passed, was not verified, the CIT(A)'s order was liable to be set aside for lack of findings on this crucial aspect. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) was added by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that the assessee, a director and substantial shareholder in a private company, had received a loan from the company. The assessee contended that the provisions apply only to actual cash payments, not journal entries. The Tribunal observed that the addition was based on advances presented as mere journal entries, suggesting no actual loan was received. The assessee consistently explained this before the authorities, but it was not adequately examined. The Tribunal held that since the assessee's contention of no sum being received, only a journal entry passed, was not verified, the CIT(A)'s order was liable to be set aside for lack of findings on this crucial aspect. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
