Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging deletion of Rs. 6...
Assessee's Rs. 6 crore addition deleted under sections 68, 69, and 115BBE after proving cash reference was typographical error for 2013 loan transaction.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging deletion of Rs. 6 crore addition under sections 68 and 69 read with section 115BBE. Assessee-firm executed exchange agreement mentioning cash consideration for property purchase, but tribunal found this was typographical error referring to loan previously given by cheque in 2013. Property was already attached under section 281B making subsequent transactions void ab initio. Document analysis revealed assessee created mortgage charge to secure capital against attached property, with borrower given three months to resolve departmental disputes. Tribunal held cash payment reference was same loan amount from 2013, not separate unexplained cash credit. CIT(A)'s deletion of addition was upheld as Assessing Officer erred in treating mortgage transaction as distinct cash purchase.
ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging deletion of Rs. 6 crore addition under sections 68 and 69 read with section 115BBE. Assessee-firm executed exchange agreement mentioning cash consideration for property purchase, but tribunal found this was typographical error referring to loan previously given by cheque in 2013. Property was already attached under section 281B making subsequent transactions void ab initio. Document analysis revealed assessee created mortgage charge to secure capital against attached property, with borrower given three months to resolve departmental disputes. Tribunal held cash payment reference was same loan amount from 2013, not separate unexplained cash credit. CIT(A)'s deletion of addition was upheld as Assessing Officer erred in treating mortgage transaction as distinct cash purchase.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
