Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s reduction of disallowance on work-in-progress (WIP) expenses to 10%, finding the revenue's arbitrary adoption of this percentage without objective data impermissible, thereby allowing the assessee's ground and dismissing the revenue's claim. Regarding interest paid to a partner on capital introduced, the tribunal found the assessee's claim substantiated with adequate documentation and no evidence provided by the AO to prove the interest rate was excessive or unreasonable. The interest paid at 10.7% was deemed a legitimate financial cost integral to the project's sustenance. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was set aside, and the revenue's ground was rejected. Thus, both appeals by the revenue were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s orders in favor of the assessee.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s reduction of disallowance on work-in-progress (WIP) expenses to 10%, finding the revenue's arbitrary adoption of this percentage without objective data impermissible, thereby allowing the assessee's ground and dismissing the revenue's claim. Regarding interest paid to a partner on capital introduced, the tribunal found the assessee's claim substantiated with adequate documentation and no evidence provided by the AO to prove the interest rate was excessive or unreasonable. The interest paid at 10.7% was deemed a legitimate financial cost integral to the project's sustenance. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was set aside, and the revenue's ground was rejected. Thus, both appeals by the revenue were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s orders in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
