Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
