Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 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 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
