Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The AT held that the impugned retention order concerning seized articles, including gold, violated natural justice by failing to issue the mandatory minimum 30-day notice under s.8(1) of the Act to require the appellant to disclose the source of income/assets; the Tribunal rejected the respondent's contention that a shareholder/director could be treated as representing the appellant without documentary authorization. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand: the matter is returned to the Adjudicating Authority with directions to serve the requisite s.8(1) notice on the appellant company and to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law and due process.
The AT held that the impugned retention order concerning seized articles, including gold, violated natural justice by failing to issue the mandatory minimum 30-day notice under s.8(1) of the Act to require the appellant to disclose the source of income/assets; the Tribunal rejected the respondent's contention that a shareholder/director could be treated as representing the appellant without documentary authorization. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand: the matter is returned to the Adjudicating Authority with directions to serve the requisite s.8(1) notice on the appellant company and to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law and due process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
