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...
ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that the rejection of the books of account by CIT(A) was unwarranted as no cogent defects were demonstrated and conclusions were based on conjecture; the AO's reliance on such rejection to invoke provisions of s.68/s.69A and tax under s.115BBE was unsustainable. The Tribunal observed the survey u/s.133A disclosed no incriminating material, the books were maintained on mercantile basis and audited with true and fair certification, and the assessment was incorrectly framed u/s.143(3) despite alleged rejection requiring s.144. Additions treating demonetized-currency bank deposits as bogus sales were deleted as speculative and resulting trading-loss recalculation was impractical.
ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that the rejection of the books of account by CIT(A) was unwarranted as no cogent defects were demonstrated and conclusions were based on conjecture; the AO's reliance on such rejection to invoke provisions of s.68/s.69A and tax under s.115BBE was unsustainable. The Tribunal observed the survey u/s.133A disclosed no incriminating material, the books were maintained on mercantile basis and audited with true and fair certification, and the assessment was incorrectly framed u/s.143(3) despite alleged rejection requiring s.144. Additions treating demonetized-currency bank deposits as bogus sales were deleted as speculative and resulting trading-loss recalculation was impractical.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.