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...
HC dismissed the revenue's addition under s.68 and allowed the assessee's appeal. The court held that where share allotment and premium were recorded contemporaneously with statutory filings and independent verification identified subscribers and traced funds, the AO could not, merely because directors failed to attend summons under s.131, conclude absence of any explanation under s.68. Applying the second proviso to s.68, the tribunal's and appellate authority's concurrent factual findings-that subscribers were identified, source of funds was established, and explanations were sufficient-were not perverse. In those circumstances the AO's subjective disbelief was unsustainable and the addition as unexplained credit was reversed.
HC dismissed the revenue's addition under s.68 and allowed the assessee's appeal. The court held that where share allotment and premium were recorded contemporaneously with statutory filings and independent verification identified subscribers and traced funds, the AO could not, merely because directors failed to attend summons under s.131, conclude absence of any explanation under s.68. Applying the second proviso to s.68, the tribunal's and appellate authority's concurrent factual findings-that subscribers were identified, source of funds was established, and explanations were sufficient-were not perverse. In those circumstances the AO's subjective disbelief was unsustainable and the addition as unexplained credit was reversed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
