Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT upheld the findings of benami transactions against the appellant and dismissed the appeal. It held that substantial cash deposits in a dummy bank account of a benamidar firm, with no genuine business activity and no supporting sale agreement or documented transaction, established that the appellant was the beneficial owner of the funds. The appellant's plea of ignorance, alleging that her husband operated the bank account, was rejected as legally untenable. The AT further held that subsequent reassessment or surrender of amounts as undisclosed income under s.148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not retrospectively nullify or regularize the earlier benami transactions under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
The AT upheld the findings of benami transactions against the appellant and dismissed the appeal. It held that substantial cash deposits in a dummy bank account of a benamidar firm, with no genuine business activity and no supporting sale agreement or documented transaction, established that the appellant was the beneficial owner of the funds. The appellant's plea of ignorance, alleging that her husband operated the bank account, was rejected as legally untenable. The AT further held that subsequent reassessment or surrender of amounts as undisclosed income under s.148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not retrospectively nullify or regularize the earlier benami transactions under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
