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 allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained increase in unsecured loan balance. The Tribunal found that the AO erroneously considered only fresh loans of Rs. 2.31 crores while ignoring interest credit of Rs. 61,14,262, TDS deduction of Rs. 6,11,425, and loan repayment of Rs. 2,60,435. When these adjustments were properly accounted for, the apparent difference of Rs. 52,42,402 in unsecured loan balance was fully explained. The Tribunal concluded that no unexplained increase existed after considering all relevant transactions, rendering the AO's addition incorrect and unjustified.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained increase in unsecured loan balance. The Tribunal found that the AO erroneously considered only fresh loans of Rs. 2.31 crores while ignoring interest credit of Rs. 61,14,262, TDS deduction of Rs. 6,11,425, and loan repayment of Rs. 2,60,435. When these adjustments were properly accounted for, the apparent difference of Rs. 52,42,402 in unsecured loan balance was fully explained. The Tribunal concluded that no unexplained increase existed after considering all relevant transactions, rendering the AO's addition incorrect and unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
