Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Non-resident assessee, a regular income tax filer, was subject to best judgment assessment u/s 144 for unexplained investment in mutual funds u/s 69. Assessee submitted additional evidence u/r 46A, which the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to consider properly. ITAT observed assessee is an NRI with income sourced outside India, and the investment was traceable from bank statements. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition on mutual fund investment and long-term capital gains on sale of equity-oriented mutual funds, being exempt u/s 10(38). ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere given the evidence on record.
Non-resident assessee, a regular income tax filer, was subject to best judgment assessment u/s 144 for unexplained investment in mutual funds u/s 69. Assessee submitted additional evidence u/r 46A, which the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to consider properly. ITAT observed assessee is an NRI with income sourced outside India, and the investment was traceable from bank statements. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition on mutual fund investment and long-term capital gains on sale of equity-oriented mutual funds, being exempt u/s 10(38). ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere given the evidence on record.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.