Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under section 68 concerning unexplained share capital and share premium credits, finding the assessee successfully demonstrated these were earlier credited funds transferred via journal entries among related parties, with no fresh funds introduced during the relevant year. Consequently, the revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. However, regarding advances shown under other liabilities, the CIT(A) accepted fresh evidence without remanding the matter to the AO for verification of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties, violating procedural requirements. The ITAT agreed with the revenue that the issue required reconsideration and partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, mandating further examination of the advances' legitimacy.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under section 68 concerning unexplained share capital and share premium credits, finding the assessee successfully demonstrated these were earlier credited funds transferred via journal entries among related parties, with no fresh funds introduced during the relevant year. Consequently, the revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. However, regarding advances shown under other liabilities, the CIT(A) accepted fresh evidence without remanding the matter to the AO for verification of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties, violating procedural requirements. The ITAT agreed with the revenue that the issue required reconsideration and partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, mandating further examination of the advances' legitimacy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.