Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT upheld deletion of addition under section 68 regarding unexplained share application money and premium. Assessee established initial burden of proof through banking channel transactions. While AO confirmed service of section 133(6) notices to investor companies, subsequent doubts about company addresses based on IT Inspector's inquiry lacked specific inspection dates. AO failed to produce concrete evidence disproving transaction genuineness or demonstrating undisclosed income. Non-appearance of investor company directors alone insufficient to invalidate transactions. ITAT found CIT(A)'s deletion of addition justified as assessee satisfied section 68 requirements through proper documentation and banking records. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
ITAT upheld deletion of addition under section 68 regarding unexplained share application money and premium. Assessee established initial burden of proof through banking channel transactions. While AO confirmed service of section 133(6) notices to investor companies, subsequent doubts about company addresses based on IT Inspector's inquiry lacked specific inspection dates. AO failed to produce concrete evidence disproving transaction genuineness or demonstrating undisclosed income. Non-appearance of investor company directors alone insufficient to invalidate transactions. ITAT found CIT(A)'s deletion of addition justified as assessee satisfied section 68 requirements through proper documentation and banking records. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.