Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
