Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
The ITAT upheld the validity of the notice issued under section 148 by the jurisdictional AO, dismissing the assessee's challenge regarding issuance by the faceless AO. The defect in sanction under section 151 without a valid DIN was held irregular but not illegal, and the notice bearing a valid DIN was sustained. Disallowance of bogus purchases was confirmed at 12.5%. Additions under section 69C for unexplained expenditure based on diary entries were upheld, while protective additions under section 69A related to seized diary entries and unexplained gold investment were deleted, as the AO failed to prove cash purchases or excess gold. The addition of long-term capital gains on sale of property was partly allowed with directions to recompute tax excluding section 69A applicability. Overall, the appeal was partly allowed, with the protective additions deleted and substantive additions sustained where adequately supported by evidence.
The ITAT upheld the validity of the notice issued under section 148 by the jurisdictional AO, dismissing the assessee's challenge regarding issuance by the faceless AO. The defect in sanction under section 151 without a valid DIN was held irregular but not illegal, and the notice bearing a valid DIN was sustained. Disallowance of bogus purchases was confirmed at 12.5%. Additions under section 69C for unexplained expenditure based on diary entries were upheld, while protective additions under section 69A related to seized diary entries and unexplained gold investment were deleted, as the AO failed to prove cash purchases or excess gold. The addition of long-term capital gains on sale of property was partly allowed with directions to recompute tax excluding section 69A applicability. Overall, the appeal was partly allowed, with the protective additions deleted and substantive additions sustained where adequately supported by evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.