Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT upheld addition under section 68 regarding unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 78,00,000/- as assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation or supporting documentation despite opportunities from AO and CIT(A). Assessee's alternative plea to apply 8% presumptive taxation under section 44AD was rejected as turnover exceeded eligible threshold of Rs. 60 lakh. However, ITAT deleted AO's addition of 8% presumptive tax on remaining turnover of Rs. 28,14,676/-, accepting explanation that deposits originated from assessee's business profits and father's savings/business accruals. Tribunal found father's business history with turnover between Rs. 51-62 lakh made explanation plausible. Appeal partially allowed with respect to smaller cash deposits while maintaining primary addition under section 68.
ITAT upheld addition under section 68 regarding unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 78,00,000/- as assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation or supporting documentation despite opportunities from AO and CIT(A). Assessee's alternative plea to apply 8% presumptive taxation under section 44AD was rejected as turnover exceeded eligible threshold of Rs. 60 lakh. However, ITAT deleted AO's addition of 8% presumptive tax on remaining turnover of Rs. 28,14,676/-, accepting explanation that deposits originated from assessee's business profits and father's savings/business accruals. Tribunal found father's business history with turnover between Rs. 51-62 lakh made explanation plausible. Appeal partially allowed with respect to smaller cash deposits while maintaining primary addition under section 68.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.