Charitable registration turns on predominant purpose and genuine activities, while incidental fees and related-party rent require supporting adverse m...
MAT book-profit adjustments exclude disallowances for exempt-income expenditure and demerger expenditure unless expressly listed under the statutory c...
Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
401 to 420 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT decided in favor of the assessee, a doctor residing in the United Kingdom. The unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's Indian bank account during the demonetization period were claimed to be gifts from the assessee's family members, who are doctors with substantial income in India. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the cash gifts could not be deposited at once due to difficulties during demonetization. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct further inquiries u/s 133(6)/131(1) to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the donors, despite the assessee furnishing gift certificates. The onus shifted to the Assessing Officer, who made assumptions without completing the inquiry process. Considering the family's status and income, the Tribunal found the explanation for cash gifts over three years justified. However, the Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 115BBE, as the assessee was aware of the nature of additions through the show cause notice, despite the Assessing Officer not mentioning the specific section.
The ITAT decided in favor of the assessee, a doctor residing in the United Kingdom. The unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's Indian bank account during the demonetization period were claimed to be gifts from the assessee's family members, who are doctors with substantial income in India. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the cash gifts could not be deposited at once due to difficulties during demonetization. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct further inquiries u/s 133(6)/131(1) to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the donors, despite the assessee furnishing gift certificates. The onus shifted to the Assessing Officer, who made assumptions without completing the inquiry process. Considering the family's status and income, the Tribunal found the explanation for cash gifts over three years justified. However, the Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 115BBE, as the assessee was aware of the nature of additions through the show cause notice, despite the Assessing Officer not mentioning the specific section.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
