Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT ruled against the addition made under section 69 regarding unexplained investment in Oberoi Reality property. The assessee had provided complete documentation, banking channel evidence, and proper explanations for the property purchase made in 2010. The tribunal found that AO and DRP failed to specify valid grounds for rejecting the submitted evidence. Since the property was purchased in 2010 with major payments made that year, the addition in AY 2018-19 was inappropriate. The tribunal also emphasized that money brought to India by non-residents for investment purposes is not taxable when proper remittance evidence exists through banking channels. The appeal was allowed, and the addition was deleted.
ITAT ruled against the addition made under section 69 regarding unexplained investment in Oberoi Reality property. The assessee had provided complete documentation, banking channel evidence, and proper explanations for the property purchase made in 2010. The tribunal found that AO and DRP failed to specify valid grounds for rejecting the submitted evidence. Since the property was purchased in 2010 with major payments made that year, the addition in AY 2018-19 was inappropriate. The tribunal also emphasized that money brought to India by non-residents for investment purposes is not taxable when proper remittance evidence exists through banking channels. The appeal was allowed, and the addition was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
