Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT upheld deletion of additions under s.10(3) of the BMA and associated penalties under ss.41/43, holding that contemporaneous documents and the assessee's un-retracted s.132(4) statement, corroborated by a third party's affidavit, balance sheets and correspondence found during search, established that credits in foreign entities' bank accounts were withdrawn solely by the third party and not by the assessee. The Tribunal applied the presumptions under s.132(4A) read with s.292C, found them unrebutted, and concluded the foreign companies were distinct legal entities; accordingly the bank account proceeds could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Other BMA challenges were left open as unnecessary.
ITAT upheld deletion of additions under s.10(3) of the BMA and associated penalties under ss.41/43, holding that contemporaneous documents and the assessee's un-retracted s.132(4) statement, corroborated by a third party's affidavit, balance sheets and correspondence found during search, established that credits in foreign entities' bank accounts were withdrawn solely by the third party and not by the assessee. The Tribunal applied the presumptions under s.132(4A) read with s.292C, found them unrebutted, and concluded the foreign companies were distinct legal entities; accordingly the bank account proceeds could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Other BMA challenges were left open as unnecessary.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.