Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT set aside the PCIT's revision order under section 263, finding it was based on assumptions and not prejudicial to revenue interests. The Tribunal determined that section 69 was inapplicable as the assessee had adequately explained investment sources during the survey. The PCIT's calculations regarding valuation differences were incorrect, as the Rs.12,143 surrender was based on estimated valuation reports. Regarding ESI payments, the PCIT erroneously calculated Rs.17,298 instead of the actual Rs.9,819. The Tribunal noted that disallowance of late ESI/PF payments was improper, and the AO had properly verified these issues. The section 115BBE invocation was invalid as investment sources were explained and verified. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT set aside the PCIT's revision order under section 263, finding it was based on assumptions and not prejudicial to revenue interests. The Tribunal determined that section 69 was inapplicable as the assessee had adequately explained investment sources during the survey. The PCIT's calculations regarding valuation differences were incorrect, as the Rs.12,143 surrender was based on estimated valuation reports. Regarding ESI payments, the PCIT erroneously calculated Rs.17,298 instead of the actual Rs.9,819. The Tribunal noted that disallowance of late ESI/PF payments was improper, and the AO had properly verified these issues. The section 115BBE invocation was invalid as investment sources were explained and verified. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
