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 reversed additions made by the AO under Section 69C based on entries in a seized diary, finding that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by denying the contents, while Revenue failed to conduct independent inquiries or produce corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that additions based solely on diary entries without supporting evidence would be contrary to judicial precedent, noting that the presumption under Sections 132(4A) and 292C is rebuttable. The ITAT applied the principle that the burden of proof lies on the person making allegations, and an assessee cannot be required to prove a negative. Similarly, unexplained investment allegations for plot purchase were rejected due to lack of documentary evidence. The assessee's appeals were allowed.
The ITAT reversed additions made by the AO under Section 69C based on entries in a seized diary, finding that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by denying the contents, while Revenue failed to conduct independent inquiries or produce corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that additions based solely on diary entries without supporting evidence would be contrary to judicial precedent, noting that the presumption under Sections 132(4A) and 292C is rebuttable. The ITAT applied the principle that the burden of proof lies on the person making allegations, and an assessee cannot be required to prove a negative. Similarly, unexplained investment allegations for plot purchase were rejected due to lack of documentary evidence. The assessee's appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
