COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Transfer-pricing comparability filters require fresh arm's-length analysis, while delayed receivables need separate reconsideration with working-capit...
Section 153C jurisdiction requires timely deemed search and assessee-specific satisfaction material; otherwise reassessment must use the proper statut...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
681 to 700 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the validity of reopening assessment proceedings u/s 147 and issuing notice u/s 148 based on information from the Annual Information Return (AIR) about substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient tangible material to reopen the case and the assessee's contention regarding non-supply of AIR information details was rejected. Regarding the additions made u/ss 69A and 69 for unexplained money and investments, the Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's grounds. Considering the decision in CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill, the Tribunal estimated 10% of the cash credits of Rs. 43,99,215 and other credits of Rs. 1.70 lacs as the assessee's reasonable income to avoid revenue leakage, instead of treating the entire transactions as income.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the validity of reopening assessment proceedings u/s 147 and issuing notice u/s 148 based on information from the Annual Information Return (AIR) about substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient tangible material to reopen the case and the assessee's contention regarding non-supply of AIR information details was rejected. Regarding the additions made u/ss 69A and 69 for unexplained money and investments, the Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's grounds. Considering the decision in CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill, the Tribunal estimated 10% of the cash credits of Rs. 43,99,215 and other credits of Rs. 1.70 lacs as the assessee's reasonable income to avoid revenue leakage, instead of treating the entire transactions as income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
