Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
ITAT ruled in favor of assessee on two key issues. First, the allegation of "on-money" payment for residential property was rejected as the difference between actual payment and registered value cannot be deemed undisclosed income when payments were made through verified banking channels and loan disbursements. Second, DRP's direction to AO for further verification post-DRP proceedings was held ultra vires as per Sec 144C. DRP must conduct verifications during proceedings under 144C(7), not after issuing directions. AO must complete assessment within one month of receiving DRP directions without additional inquiry. Consequently, the addition made in Final Assessment Order was held without jurisdiction and deleted.
ITAT ruled in favor of assessee on two key issues. First, the allegation of "on-money" payment for residential property was rejected as the difference between actual payment and registered value cannot be deemed undisclosed income when payments were made through verified banking channels and loan disbursements. Second, DRP's direction to AO for further verification post-DRP proceedings was held ultra vires as per Sec 144C. DRP must conduct verifications during proceedings under 144C(7), not after issuing directions. AO must complete assessment within one month of receiving DRP directions without additional inquiry. Consequently, the addition made in Final Assessment Order was held without jurisdiction and deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
