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...
ITAT upheld the validity of reopening under s.148 (reasons recorded, sanction obtained, survey-linked information), dismissing the challenge to jurisdiction and the plea for s.153C. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on substantive additions: it held that CIT(A) wrongly exercised powers under s.251(2) read with s.145(3) without applying accepted accounting/project completion methods, rendering those additions bad in law; consequential disallowances and construction-expense additions sustained by AO/CIT(A) were deleted. The cancellation of registration under s.12AA and related presumptive additions were not sustained, and the impugned additions are set aside in favour of the assessee.
ITAT upheld the validity of reopening under s.148 (reasons recorded, sanction obtained, survey-linked information), dismissing the challenge to jurisdiction and the plea for s.153C. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on substantive additions: it held that CIT(A) wrongly exercised powers under s.251(2) read with s.145(3) without applying accepted accounting/project completion methods, rendering those additions bad in law; consequential disallowances and construction-expense additions sustained by AO/CIT(A) were deleted. The cancellation of registration under s.12AA and related presumptive additions were not sustained, and the impugned additions are set aside in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.