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 held that where amounts received by an assessee firm are duly recorded in its books and partners affirm introduction of capital, an addition under s. 68 cannot be sustained against the firm; any doubt as to the creditworthiness or genuineness of the source must be investigated qua the individual partner who introduced the funds rather than against the firm. The tribunal concluded that treating partners' capital deployed for land acquisition as unexplained investment vis-Ã -vis the firm was impermissible. Accordingly, the assessing officer's addition was annulled, the appellate authority's contrary finding was set aside, and the firm's corresponding grounds were allowed.
ITAT held that where amounts received by an assessee firm are duly recorded in its books and partners affirm introduction of capital, an addition under s. 68 cannot be sustained against the firm; any doubt as to the creditworthiness or genuineness of the source must be investigated qua the individual partner who introduced the funds rather than against the firm. The tribunal concluded that treating partners' capital deployed for land acquisition as unexplained investment vis-Ã -vis the firm was impermissible. Accordingly, the assessing officer's addition was annulled, the appellate authority's contrary finding was set aside, and the firm's corresponding grounds were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.