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 addressed unexplained investments during a search u/s 132. Nine wrist watches seized were deemed inadmissible under section 69, as they should have been evaluated under section 69A. Jewellery valued at Rs. 96,15,563/- was treated as explained, with the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 1,07,22,844/- upheld. Regarding ownership of 6200 grams of jewellery, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine claimants' statements and verify ownership substantively. The presumption of ownership under section 132(4) remained rebuttable. The Revenue's appeal was partially allowed for statistical purposes, with specific directions for further investigation into the jewellery's provenance.
ITAT addressed unexplained investments during a search u/s 132. Nine wrist watches seized were deemed inadmissible under section 69, as they should have been evaluated under section 69A. Jewellery valued at Rs. 96,15,563/- was treated as explained, with the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 1,07,22,844/- upheld. Regarding ownership of 6200 grams of jewellery, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine claimants' statements and verify ownership substantively. The presumption of ownership under section 132(4) remained rebuttable. The Revenue's appeal was partially allowed for statistical purposes, with specific directions for further investigation into the jewellery's provenance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
