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...
The ITAT allowed the taxpayer's appeal regarding disallowance of short-term capital loss on share sale. The tribunal held that oral agreements between family members deserve equal credibility and mere deficiencies in ROC records cannot justify treating transactions as sham without additional evidence. The court emphasized that strong suspicion cannot substitute for evidence supporting the assessee's claim. The tribunal ruled that the onus lies on Revenue to prove apparent transactions are not genuine, rather than requiring taxpayers to prove legitimacy of properly documented share sales with consideration movement. The disallowance was reversed and capital loss claim was accepted.
The ITAT allowed the taxpayer's appeal regarding disallowance of short-term capital loss on share sale. The tribunal held that oral agreements between family members deserve equal credibility and mere deficiencies in ROC records cannot justify treating transactions as sham without additional evidence. The court emphasized that strong suspicion cannot substitute for evidence supporting the assessee's claim. The tribunal ruled that the onus lies on Revenue to prove apparent transactions are not genuine, rather than requiring taxpayers to prove legitimacy of properly documented share sales with consideration movement. The disallowance was reversed and capital loss claim was accepted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.