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 disallowance of depreciation and additional depreciation claimed on alleged bogus purchases, as well as VAT-related additions. The Tribunal affirmed that the primary onus to establish return correctness rests with the taxpayer, citing precedent from Gauhati HC. The appellant merely provided invoices from B.N. Trading Company, which investigation confirmed were bogus. The taxpayer failed to demonstrate the supplier's location, and GST Department verification revealed no correlation between B.N. Trading's product line and goods allegedly purchased by the appellant. The Tribunal distinguished the case from SVD Resins & Plastics, finding the precedent inapplicable due to factual differences, and dismissed the appeals.
The ITAT upheld disallowance of depreciation and additional depreciation claimed on alleged bogus purchases, as well as VAT-related additions. The Tribunal affirmed that the primary onus to establish return correctness rests with the taxpayer, citing precedent from Gauhati HC. The appellant merely provided invoices from B.N. Trading Company, which investigation confirmed were bogus. The taxpayer failed to demonstrate the supplier's location, and GST Department verification revealed no correlation between B.N. Trading's product line and goods allegedly purchased by the appellant. The Tribunal distinguished the case from SVD Resins & Plastics, finding the precedent inapplicable due to factual differences, and dismissed the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
