Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
