Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
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...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
421 to 440 of 95794 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 filed a revised return of income to correct the addition based on professional receipts in the original return. The hospital made a total payment of Rs. 47,26,546 to the assessee during the year, shown as professional receipts. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Rs. 1,89,909 pertains to a partial refund of deposits. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,89,909 is confirmed. The assessee proved payment to an anesthetist, and the addition related to this payment is directed to be deleted. The assessee substantiated payment to Dr. RK as professional fees through evidence, and this addition is directed to be deleted as the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Regarding petrol and diesel expenditure, the assessee failed to provide specific evidence, and the addition of Rs. 1,05,230 is upheld. The salary and wages addition of Rs. 48,950 is directed to be deleted as the amount remained payable for March 2020, and the assessee provided supporting documents without any discrepancy.
The assessee filed a revised return of income to correct the addition based on professional receipts in the original return. The hospital made a total payment of Rs. 47,26,546 to the assessee during the year, shown as professional receipts. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Rs. 1,89,909 pertains to a partial refund of deposits. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,89,909 is confirmed. The assessee proved payment to an anesthetist, and the addition related to this payment is directed to be deleted. The assessee substantiated payment to Dr. RK as professional fees through evidence, and this addition is directed to be deleted as the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Regarding petrol and diesel expenditure, the assessee failed to provide specific evidence, and the addition of Rs. 1,05,230 is upheld. The salary and wages addition of Rs. 48,950 is directed to be deleted as the amount remained payable for March 2020, and the assessee provided supporting documents without any discrepancy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.