Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 95875 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 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
