Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 
