Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Co-operative deduction eligibility excludes refund and commercial-bank interest, while qualifying co-operative investments require entity-wise verific...
Enhanced tax rate on surrendered unexplained income applies prospectively, while cash-deposit telescoping requires verification of available surrender...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 96100 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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
