Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT allowed the appeal: it reversed the AO's additions and directed deletion of the disallowance under s.69C. The Tribunal found the AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting bona fide improvement expenditures where the assessee produced original bills, payment evidence and corroborative invoices, despite the assessee's name not appearing on some vouchers; the totality of circumstances supported allowance of the cost of improvement. Likewise, commission/brokerage payments to four payees were held to be genuine and claimed in the recipients' returns and confirmations; mere filing after s.133(6) inquiries or familial relationship did not justify disallowance absent contrary evidence. The AO was directed to allow the claimed deductions for computation of capital gains.
ITAT allowed the appeal: it reversed the AO's additions and directed deletion of the disallowance under s.69C. The Tribunal found the AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting bona fide improvement expenditures where the assessee produced original bills, payment evidence and corroborative invoices, despite the assessee's name not appearing on some vouchers; the totality of circumstances supported allowance of the cost of improvement. Likewise, commission/brokerage payments to four payees were held to be genuine and claimed in the recipients' returns and confirmations; mere filing after s.133(6) inquiries or familial relationship did not justify disallowance absent contrary evidence. The AO was directed to allow the claimed deductions for computation of capital gains.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
