ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
AT dismissed both appeals and upheld the impugned provisional attachment and adjudication orders under the PBPTA. The Tribunal found the Approving Authority applied independent mind, relied on inquiry materials and notes, and concluded the references and orders were within the one-year limitation under s.26(7). The Appellant failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove legitimate consideration for two properties; cash payments and unexplained bank deposits, absence of corroborative agricultural income and missing ITRs warranted inference of non-agricultural/benami dealings. Alleged procedural flaws were characterized as mere surmises. Consequently, the PAO and consequent adjudication were sustained and both appeals were dismissed.
AT dismissed both appeals and upheld the impugned provisional attachment and adjudication orders under the PBPTA. The Tribunal found the Approving Authority applied independent mind, relied on inquiry materials and notes, and concluded the references and orders were within the one-year limitation under s.26(7). The Appellant failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove legitimate consideration for two properties; cash payments and unexplained bank deposits, absence of corroborative agricultural income and missing ITRs warranted inference of non-agricultural/benami dealings. Alleged procedural flaws were characterized as mere surmises. Consequently, the PAO and consequent adjudication were sustained and both appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.