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...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
