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 allowed the appeal and deleted the additions: the tribunal held that unsecured deposits could not be treated as unexplained loans where the depositor's ITR, PAN, address, and interest income (with TDS) were on record and uncontroverted by the Department, negating any presumption of unexplained liability. Separately, additions characterizing deposits as capital introduced were disallowed because the assessee furnished bank statements, partner capital accounts and ITRs evidencing prior withdrawals as the source, the AO failed to specify what further proof was required, and the CIT(A) merely affirmed without reasons. On this record the onus shifted to Revenue, which failed to rebut the assessee's cogent documentary explanation.
ITAT allowed the appeal and deleted the additions: the tribunal held that unsecured deposits could not be treated as unexplained loans where the depositor's ITR, PAN, address, and interest income (with TDS) were on record and uncontroverted by the Department, negating any presumption of unexplained liability. Separately, additions characterizing deposits as capital introduced were disallowed because the assessee furnished bank statements, partner capital accounts and ITRs evidencing prior withdrawals as the source, the AO failed to specify what further proof was required, and the CIT(A) merely affirmed without reasons. On this record the onus shifted to Revenue, which failed to rebut the assessee's cogent documentary explanation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.