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 reopening under s.148, holding that credible information and unexplained credits warranted assessment under s.68; the assessee's failure to furnish demanded balance-sheet and specific bank statements constituted intentional omission, rendering entries unexplained and justifying additions. The Tribunal rejected CIT(A)'s view that s.153C applied, endorsing s.148 as the proper provision, and declined to admit fresh submissions not pressed before it. ITAT reiterated that books showing loans/borrowings must satisfy s.68 even if squared up within the year, and accepted doctrines such as lifting the corporate veil and substance-over-form where accommodation entries or sham transactions are suspected. Selection for full scrutiny under CBDT criteria was held permissible.
ITAT affirmed reopening under s.148, holding that credible information and unexplained credits warranted assessment under s.68; the assessee's failure to furnish demanded balance-sheet and specific bank statements constituted intentional omission, rendering entries unexplained and justifying additions. The Tribunal rejected CIT(A)'s view that s.153C applied, endorsing s.148 as the proper provision, and declined to admit fresh submissions not pressed before it. ITAT reiterated that books showing loans/borrowings must satisfy s.68 even if squared up within the year, and accepted doctrines such as lifting the corporate veil and substance-over-form where accommodation entries or sham transactions are suspected. Selection for full scrutiny under CBDT criteria was held permissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.