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 affirmed deletion of additions against the assessee, holding that the limbs of s.69A were not satisfied where no cash, bullion, jewellery or other incriminating assets were found and no reliable money trail linked the impounded booking forms to undisclosed receipts. Additions under s.69C based on differences between estimated booking values and sale deed consideration were also deleted where there was no evidence of genuine customer bookings and no corroboration of on-money receipts. The Tribunal found the AO failed to produce corroborative evidence or properly examine customers, and relied on loose papers and electronic material without requisite evidentiary foundation, thereby deciding against the revenue.
ITAT affirmed deletion of additions against the assessee, holding that the limbs of s.69A were not satisfied where no cash, bullion, jewellery or other incriminating assets were found and no reliable money trail linked the impounded booking forms to undisclosed receipts. Additions under s.69C based on differences between estimated booking values and sale deed consideration were also deleted where there was no evidence of genuine customer bookings and no corroboration of on-money receipts. The Tribunal found the AO failed to produce corroborative evidence or properly examine customers, and relied on loose papers and electronic material without requisite evidentiary foundation, thereby deciding against the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.