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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
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.