Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
