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...
AT determined that a gold purchase transaction of Rs. 1 Crore constituted a benami transaction under PBPTA. The transaction involved RTGS transfer from A's account to firm H, but gold delivery was made to M instead of A. Despite having A's signed invoice received through M, the appellant failed to establish direct delivery to A. Several suspicious elements emerged: cash deposit by non-account holder A, involvement of M who was partner in appellant's other firm B, subsequent closure of H's bank account with proceeds transferred to B where M was also partner. The appellant's claim of good faith was rejected due to irregular business practices and unexplained circumstances surrounding the transaction. The pattern of fund transfer, delivery arrangements, and business relationships indicated deliberate circumvention of normal procedures. Appeal dismissed.
AT determined that a gold purchase transaction of Rs. 1 Crore constituted a benami transaction under PBPTA. The transaction involved RTGS transfer from A's account to firm H, but gold delivery was made to M instead of A. Despite having A's signed invoice received through M, the appellant failed to establish direct delivery to A. Several suspicious elements emerged: cash deposit by non-account holder A, involvement of M who was partner in appellant's other firm B, subsequent closure of H's bank account with proceeds transferred to B where M was also partner. The appellant's claim of good faith was rejected due to irregular business practices and unexplained circumstances surrounding the transaction. The pattern of fund transfer, delivery arrangements, and business relationships indicated deliberate circumvention of normal procedures. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
