Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Objective characteristics govern magnesium bis-glycinate chelate classification as an amino-acid coordination compound, not a food preparation or anti...
Independent professional certification requires pleaded knowledge or complicity for criminal liability; untimely complaints remain barred by limitatio...
HC upheld the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of alleged unexplained income from sale of shares of Global Capital Markets Ltd. The HC held that the AO's addition was based solely on unsubstantiated third-party information regarding penny stock transactions, without disclosing the source or material to the assessee and without conducting any independent inquiry. The assessee had demonstrably purchased the shares in 2003 and sold them in 2010 through a recognized stock exchange after payment of STT, negating the allegation of short-term accommodation entries. As the transaction was supported by proper documentation and the Revenue failed to prove that the consideration was bogus or that the entities were fictitious, the HC found no perversity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
HC upheld the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of alleged unexplained income from sale of shares of Global Capital Markets Ltd. The HC held that the AO's addition was based solely on unsubstantiated third-party information regarding penny stock transactions, without disclosing the source or material to the assessee and without conducting any independent inquiry. The assessee had demonstrably purchased the shares in 2003 and sold them in 2010 through a recognized stock exchange after payment of STT, negating the allegation of short-term accommodation entries. As the transaction was supported by proper documentation and the Revenue failed to prove that the consideration was bogus or that the entities were fictitious, the HC found no perversity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
