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...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Regarding the additions made u/s 153A, the ITAT held that since no incriminating material was referred to by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the search, no additions could be made in a completed assessment as per the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Secondly, concerning the addition of bogus purchases, the ITAT observed that the purchases were accounted for in the regular books, and the source of payments was duly explained. Hence, the provisions of Section 69C were not applicable. Thirdly, regarding the addition u/s 69A, the ITAT upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s deletion of the addition, considering the assessee's retracted undisclosed income figure backed by credible evidence and the presumption u/ss 132(4A) and 292C.
Regarding the additions made u/s 153A, the ITAT held that since no incriminating material was referred to by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the search, no additions could be made in a completed assessment as per the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Secondly, concerning the addition of bogus purchases, the ITAT observed that the purchases were accounted for in the regular books, and the source of payments was duly explained. Hence, the provisions of Section 69C were not applicable. Thirdly, regarding the addition u/s 69A, the ITAT upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s deletion of the addition, considering the assessee's retracted undisclosed income figure backed by credible evidence and the presumption u/ss 132(4A) and 292C.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
