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 ruled against additions made under section 153A for unsecured loans (s.68) and interest expense disallowance (s.37(1)) in a concluded assessment year. Following SC precedent in Abhisar Buildwell and Delhi HC in Pavitra Realcon, the Tribunal held that absent incriminating material discovered during search under s.132, AO lacks jurisdiction to reassess completed assessments. A statement under s.132(4) alone, without corroborating search evidence, is insufficient basis for assessment. Since the year in question was an unabated assessment with no incriminating evidence found during search, the additions were invalidated and ruled in assessee's favor.
ITAT ruled against additions made under section 153A for unsecured loans (s.68) and interest expense disallowance (s.37(1)) in a concluded assessment year. Following SC precedent in Abhisar Buildwell and Delhi HC in Pavitra Realcon, the Tribunal held that absent incriminating material discovered during search under s.132, AO lacks jurisdiction to reassess completed assessments. A statement under s.132(4) alone, without corroborating search evidence, is insufficient basis for assessment. Since the year in question was an unabated assessment with no incriminating evidence found during search, the additions were invalidated and ruled in assessee's favor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.