Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
Respondent no. 5 - M/s Adel Landmark Limited's application for compounding offences u/s 276B and 278B was rejected as the competent authority [Chief CIT(TDS)] deemed petitioner's standalone application non-considerable. HC set aside the order, remanding to the competent authority to decide afresh per current guidelines, allowing co-accused to apply separately for compounding offences. Petition disposed accordingly.
Respondent no. 5 - M/s Adel Landmark Limited's application for compounding offences u/s 276B and 278B was rejected as the competent authority [Chief CIT(TDS)] deemed petitioner's standalone application non-considerable. HC set aside the order, remanding to the competent authority to decide afresh per current guidelines, allowing co-accused to apply separately for compounding offences. Petition disposed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.