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 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.