Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal regarding unexplained expenditure under section 69C. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) erroneously made additions based on unsubstantiated handwritten loose documents without meaningful inquiry. The seized documents lacked corroboration, contained arithmetic mistakes, and did not align with shareholders' records. The Tribunal emphasized that loose sheets are inadmissible without additional evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. The Fair Market Value calculation was deemed appropriate, considering factors like intellectual capital and future profit potential. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, with the Tribunal concluding that the additions made during the search action were not sacrosanct or conclusive.
ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal regarding unexplained expenditure under section 69C. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) erroneously made additions based on unsubstantiated handwritten loose documents without meaningful inquiry. The seized documents lacked corroboration, contained arithmetic mistakes, and did not align with shareholders' records. The Tribunal emphasized that loose sheets are inadmissible without additional evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. The Fair Market Value calculation was deemed appropriate, considering factors like intellectual capital and future profit potential. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, with the Tribunal concluding that the additions made during the search action were not sacrosanct or conclusive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
