Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
The HC held that no unexplained money under s.69A arose in respect of the cash-in-hand carried from FY 2015-16 to FY 2016-17 and deposited during demonetisation. The court found an inextricable nexus between disclosed bank withdrawals, advances to third parties, interest receipts and subsequent return of funds evidenced in the assessee's balance sheet and the return of income filed and processed under s.143(1). Absence of a mandatory s.143(2) scrutiny notice rendered the return final for that assessment year, and the AO failed to demonstrate that the cash constituted unexplained income warranting invocation of s.69A. Decision: in favour of the assessee.
The HC held that no unexplained money under s.69A arose in respect of the cash-in-hand carried from FY 2015-16 to FY 2016-17 and deposited during demonetisation. The court found an inextricable nexus between disclosed bank withdrawals, advances to third parties, interest receipts and subsequent return of funds evidenced in the assessee's balance sheet and the return of income filed and processed under s.143(1). Absence of a mandatory s.143(2) scrutiny notice rendered the return final for that assessment year, and the AO failed to demonstrate that the cash constituted unexplained income warranting invocation of s.69A. Decision: in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
