Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
