Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 95875 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 held that additions under section 69 for unexplained investments were not justified as the alleged investments were recorded in the books and the assessee provided satisfactory explanations supported by documentary evidence. The AO's reliance solely on account entries, prepared immediately after the financial year without corroborative proof, was insufficient. The tribunal emphasized that for invoking section 69, the investments must be unrecorded in the books and the source of funds unexplained. Here, the sale consideration was not paid, and there was no physical transfer of property, rendering the purported sale invalid and the deed ineffective. Consequently, no unexplained investment arose, and the addition under section 69 was unwarranted. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the addition.
The ITAT held that additions under section 69 for unexplained investments were not justified as the alleged investments were recorded in the books and the assessee provided satisfactory explanations supported by documentary evidence. The AO's reliance solely on account entries, prepared immediately after the financial year without corroborative proof, was insufficient. The tribunal emphasized that for invoking section 69, the investments must be unrecorded in the books and the source of funds unexplained. Here, the sale consideration was not paid, and there was no physical transfer of property, rendering the purported sale invalid and the deed ineffective. Consequently, no unexplained investment arose, and the addition under section 69 was unwarranted. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the addition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.