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 held that cash receipt of Rs. 7 lakhs for immovable property sale did not violate section 269SS. The unregistered agreement to sale, which subsequently culminated in a sale deed, was deemed valid. The department failed to verify the cash payment details or provide cogent reasons for rejecting the assessee's claim. No substantive evidence demonstrated a violation of statutory provisions. The tribunal found no merit in the penalty order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. The appeal was allowed, with the CIT(A)'s procedural inconsistencies regarding appeal filing date also noted and dismissed.
ITAT held that cash receipt of Rs. 7 lakhs for immovable property sale did not violate section 269SS. The unregistered agreement to sale, which subsequently culminated in a sale deed, was deemed valid. The department failed to verify the cash payment details or provide cogent reasons for rejecting the assessee's claim. No substantive evidence demonstrated a violation of statutory provisions. The tribunal found no merit in the penalty order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. The appeal was allowed, with the CIT(A)'s procedural inconsistencies regarding appeal filing date also noted and dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
