Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
