Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
681 to 700 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the assessee company. The assessee had furnished all relevant documents and evidence to prove the genuineness of the share application money received, including PAN details, Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, Audit Reports, Balance Sheets, Bank statements, share application forms, Board Resolutions, and confirmations from the investor companies. The transactions were through proper banking channels and reflected in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act treating the share capital as unexplained cash credits, solely based on statements recorded in some other case, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination to the assessee. The ITAT held that the AO had denied natural justice by not granting an opportunity for cross-examination and had made the addition without assigning valid reasons or bringing any contrary evidence on record to negate the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that the impugned addition was unjustified.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the assessee company. The assessee had furnished all relevant documents and evidence to prove the genuineness of the share application money received, including PAN details, Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, Audit Reports, Balance Sheets, Bank statements, share application forms, Board Resolutions, and confirmations from the investor companies. The transactions were through proper banking channels and reflected in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act treating the share capital as unexplained cash credits, solely based on statements recorded in some other case, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination to the assessee. The ITAT held that the AO had denied natural justice by not granting an opportunity for cross-examination and had made the addition without assigning valid reasons or bringing any contrary evidence on record to negate the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that the impugned addition was unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
