Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessee's unexplained cash credits u/s 68 were deleted by the CIT(A) after accepting the submissions that the cash receipts from various sources like cash sales, realization of outstanding debtors, and current year debtors matched with the VAT returns. The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained the cash deposits in specified bank notes (SBNs) received during demonetization, arising from cash sales during the relevant assessment year, realization of outstanding debtors from previous years, and current year debtors, as per the books of accounts. The assessee reconciled the cash sales, outstanding debtors with the VAT returns. Although the turnover increased significantly, the cash realization through sales and debtors was not abnormal. The assessee filed confirmed account statements before the Tribunal. Since the books of accounts and VAT returns were accepted, and no defect was found in the cash generation before November 8, 2016, the Tribunal held that the cash deposited in SBNs during demonetization stood explained. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal ruled that SBNs cannot be added when the source of cash is explained. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The assessee's unexplained cash credits u/s 68 were deleted by the CIT(A) after accepting the submissions that the cash receipts from various sources like cash sales, realization of outstanding debtors, and current year debtors matched with the VAT returns. The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained the cash deposits in specified bank notes (SBNs) received during demonetization, arising from cash sales during the relevant assessment year, realization of outstanding debtors from previous years, and current year debtors, as per the books of accounts. The assessee reconciled the cash sales, outstanding debtors with the VAT returns. Although the turnover increased significantly, the cash realization through sales and debtors was not abnormal. The assessee filed confirmed account statements before the Tribunal. Since the books of accounts and VAT returns were accepted, and no defect was found in the cash generation before November 8, 2016, the Tribunal held that the cash deposited in SBNs during demonetization stood explained. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal ruled that SBNs cannot be added when the source of cash is explained. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.