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...
ITAT partially allowed the appeal concerning unexplained cash deposits under section 69A r.w.s 115BBE. The appellant claimed exemption for cash gifts received from relatives on occasions like marriage anniversaries, Diwali, and birthdays. While the Tribunal acknowledged Indian custom of giving gifts on such occasions, it noted the appellant failed to explain why Rs. 3,50,000 was deposited by Sh. Sandeep Sharma in her account and why such customary gifts weren't regularly deposited in previous years. Considering these factors, ITAT accepted half of the contested amount as exempted customary gifts and deleted half of the addition made by the AO, thus partially allowing the appeal.
ITAT partially allowed the appeal concerning unexplained cash deposits under section 69A r.w.s 115BBE. The appellant claimed exemption for cash gifts received from relatives on occasions like marriage anniversaries, Diwali, and birthdays. While the Tribunal acknowledged Indian custom of giving gifts on such occasions, it noted the appellant failed to explain why Rs. 3,50,000 was deposited by Sh. Sandeep Sharma in her account and why such customary gifts weren't regularly deposited in previous years. Considering these factors, ITAT accepted half of the contested amount as exempted customary gifts and deleted half of the addition made by the AO, thus partially allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
