Independent manufacturing undertaking eligibility preserves Section 80IA/80IB deductions, while machinery kept ready for use qualifies for depreciatio...
Assessing Officer Satisfaction Requirement Bars Penalty for Cash Receipt in Immovable-Property Sale Cases Where Initiation Lacks Recorded Satisfaction...
Self-assessed import entries remain appealable, while bona fide classification disputes without misdeclaration cannot justify confiscation or penaltie...
Actual-user customs exemption conditions permit turnkey project transfers when imported windmill components are exclusively used for installation and ...
Customs offence disqualification excludes civil contraventions, preventing refusal of a private bonded warehouse licence based solely on monetary pena...
The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee on the following issues: 1. Addition u/s 68 for refund of advances received from different parties was deleted. The ITAT held that receiving refunds through banking channels from different parties than those to whom advances were given earlier cannot be the sole ground for addition u/s 68, especially when the assessee had provided complete details and confirmations from the parties. The AO should have conducted further investigation if doubts persisted. 2. Disallowance of depreciation on capital assets purchased from a party involved in accommodation entries was rejected. The ITAT accepted the assessee's contention that the assets were installed, commissioned, and put to use, and the AO should have conducted physical verification when requested instead of disallowing depreciation. 3. Consequently, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed depreciation claim was also deleted.
The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee on the following issues: 1. Addition u/s 68 for refund of advances received from different parties was deleted. The ITAT held that receiving refunds through banking channels from different parties than those to whom advances were given earlier cannot be the sole ground for addition u/s 68, especially when the assessee had provided complete details and confirmations from the parties. The AO should have conducted further investigation if doubts persisted. 2. Disallowance of depreciation on capital assets purchased from a party involved in accommodation entries was rejected. The ITAT accepted the assessee's contention that the assets were installed, commissioned, and put to use, and the AO should have conducted physical verification when requested instead of disallowing depreciation. 3. Consequently, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed depreciation claim was also deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4884 
