Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
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.