Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Addition u/s 68 was made for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period. Assessee submitted detailed cash sales and deposits, demonstrating all deposits were from cash sales. AO rejected, observing SBN was banned from 09.11.2016. However, as per Ordinance, prohibition on holding SBN was after 31.12.2016, not 08.11.2016. Therefore, addition u/s 68 was dismissed. Regarding salary expenditure to brother of Director, it was allowed as he is a regular key employee and salary was disclosed in returns. However, salaries to sister-in-law and wife of Director were disallowed due to lack of evidence of employment and services rendered. The ITAT partly allowed Revenue's grounds.
Addition u/s 68 was made for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period. Assessee submitted detailed cash sales and deposits, demonstrating all deposits were from cash sales. AO rejected, observing SBN was banned from 09.11.2016. However, as per Ordinance, prohibition on holding SBN was after 31.12.2016, not 08.11.2016. Therefore, addition u/s 68 was dismissed. Regarding salary expenditure to brother of Director, it was allowed as he is a regular key employee and salary was disclosed in returns. However, salaries to sister-in-law and wife of Director were disallowed due to lack of evidence of employment and services rendered. The ITAT partly allowed Revenue's grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.