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...
ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an income addition where the AO had disallowed capital introduced by a partner as unexplained income. The Tribunal found the assessee established identity and capacity of the creditor (the partner) and that absence of interest payments to a company did not demonstrate transaction sham; alternative explanations (e.g. borrower's poor finances) could account for nonpayment. The AO failed to discharge the burden of proving the funds originated from the firm rather than the partner or that the transaction was a colourable device. In consequence the addition lacked sufficient evidentiary foundation and the Revenue's ground was rejected.
ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an income addition where the AO had disallowed capital introduced by a partner as unexplained income. The Tribunal found the assessee established identity and capacity of the creditor (the partner) and that absence of interest payments to a company did not demonstrate transaction sham; alternative explanations (e.g. borrower's poor finances) could account for nonpayment. The AO failed to discharge the burden of proving the funds originated from the firm rather than the partner or that the transaction was a colourable device. In consequence the addition lacked sufficient evidentiary foundation and the Revenue's ground was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
