Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97649 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
