PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions relating to cryptocurrency purchases and unexplained cash credits under s.68, set aside the appellate order and reinstated the AO's findings. The Tribunal noted the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence for local purchases, admitted audit coverage was limited to Zebpay transactions, and failed to substantiate transactions or furnish requisite particulars despite opportunities. Given these lacunae, the deletions by CIT(A) were unjustified; accordingly the AO's additions are restored and the matter returns to the assessment record for action consistent with the AO's findings.
ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions relating to cryptocurrency purchases and unexplained cash credits under s.68, set aside the appellate order and reinstated the AO's findings. The Tribunal noted the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence for local purchases, admitted audit coverage was limited to Zebpay transactions, and failed to substantiate transactions or furnish requisite particulars despite opportunities. Given these lacunae, the deletions by CIT(A) were unjustified; accordingly the AO's additions are restored and the matter returns to the assessment record for action consistent with the AO's findings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.