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 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
