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...
The ITAT upheld the Assessing Officer's determination that the actual sale consideration for the immovable property was Rs. 5,04,80,000/-, rejecting the assessee's arrangement with True Value as a sham transaction designed to divert sale proceeds and reduce tax liability. True Value was neither the property owner nor the assessee's authorized agent, and the claimed 50% commission was unjustified. The Tribunal confirmed the reduction of the sale consideration from WDV of the block of assets and the consequent disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs. 25,48,000/-. However, the separate addition of Rs. 2.54 Crores for disallowance of expenditure was deleted as Revenue failed to establish that this amount was separately debited in the assessee's P&L account. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed.
The ITAT upheld the Assessing Officer's determination that the actual sale consideration for the immovable property was Rs. 5,04,80,000/-, rejecting the assessee's arrangement with True Value as a sham transaction designed to divert sale proceeds and reduce tax liability. True Value was neither the property owner nor the assessee's authorized agent, and the claimed 50% commission was unjustified. The Tribunal confirmed the reduction of the sale consideration from WDV of the block of assets and the consequent disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs. 25,48,000/-. However, the separate addition of Rs. 2.54 Crores for disallowance of expenditure was deleted as Revenue failed to establish that this amount was separately debited in the assessee's P&L account. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
