Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
ITAT examined three key issues regarding property transactions and unexplained funds. On unexplained money under s.69A, the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of AO's addition, finding sufficient evidence for property acquisition. However, the short-term capital loss claim was rejected as it wasn't declared in the original return per s.80. Regarding unexplained investment, ITAT confirmed deletion of addition as payments were through banking channels with substantiated sources, except for INR 32.5 Lakhs stamp duty payment which was remanded for AO verification. On cash deposits, ITAT ruled AO exceeded limited scrutiny scope by examining bank deposits not included in original assessment reasons, and found sufficient cash balance explanation, thereby deleting the addition.
ITAT examined three key issues regarding property transactions and unexplained funds. On unexplained money under s.69A, the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of AO's addition, finding sufficient evidence for property acquisition. However, the short-term capital loss claim was rejected as it wasn't declared in the original return per s.80. Regarding unexplained investment, ITAT confirmed deletion of addition as payments were through banking channels with substantiated sources, except for INR 32.5 Lakhs stamp duty payment which was remanded for AO verification. On cash deposits, ITAT ruled AO exceeded limited scrutiny scope by examining bank deposits not included in original assessment reasons, and found sufficient cash balance explanation, thereby deleting the addition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
