Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The ITAT dismissed the plea of violation of natural justice, holding that the assessee was given ample opportunity to explain discrepancies in books and bank statements but failed to provide cogent evidence. Although the AO did not formally reject the books under section 145(3), the assessment under section 144 was upheld as valid due to mismatches found and proper procedural compliance. Additions under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits were partly disallowed, as the tribunal found that taxing the same amount twice was unjustified; instead, profits were to be computed at 7.99% of total bank credits. Consequently, additions under sections 69A and 69C were deleted, and section 115BBE was held inapplicable. Regarding undisclosed credits from a purported property sale, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication with directions to assess capital gains and verify evidence submitted by the assessee.
The ITAT dismissed the plea of violation of natural justice, holding that the assessee was given ample opportunity to explain discrepancies in books and bank statements but failed to provide cogent evidence. Although the AO did not formally reject the books under section 145(3), the assessment under section 144 was upheld as valid due to mismatches found and proper procedural compliance. Additions under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits were partly disallowed, as the tribunal found that taxing the same amount twice was unjustified; instead, profits were to be computed at 7.99% of total bank credits. Consequently, additions under sections 69A and 69C were deleted, and section 115BBE was held inapplicable. Regarding undisclosed credits from a purported property sale, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication with directions to assess capital gains and verify evidence submitted by the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.