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...
HC ruled in favor of revenue department, reversing lower authorities' decision to apply 12.5% estimation on bogus purchases. Assessee failed to explain source of expenditure for alleged purchases during reassessment proceedings. Though assessee provided limited details of sundry debtors, creditors, and stocks before CIT(A), they did not establish transaction genuineness. Before Tribunal, assessee only sought percentage-based estimation without proving purchase authenticity. HC held AO justified in adding entire amount of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, as partial allowance through profit estimation contradicts statutory provisions. Revenue's appeal allowed, rejecting assessee's claim of having discharged burden of proof regarding purchase genuineness and payment sources.
HC ruled in favor of revenue department, reversing lower authorities' decision to apply 12.5% estimation on bogus purchases. Assessee failed to explain source of expenditure for alleged purchases during reassessment proceedings. Though assessee provided limited details of sundry debtors, creditors, and stocks before CIT(A), they did not establish transaction genuineness. Before Tribunal, assessee only sought percentage-based estimation without proving purchase authenticity. HC held AO justified in adding entire amount of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, as partial allowance through profit estimation contradicts statutory provisions. Revenue's appeal allowed, rejecting assessee's claim of having discharged burden of proof regarding purchase genuineness and payment sources.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
