Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
ITAT upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) in material respects. Additions u/s 68 on account of sundry creditors were rejected, as identity, creditworthiness and genuineness were established through confirmations and statements, and the AO had proceeded merely on suspicion without summoning most creditors. In respect of unsecured loans, ITAT confirmed the sustained addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- relating to three depositors, as the assessee did not press her appeal; deletions for the remaining amounts were upheld. For expenses incurred in vacating encroachers, ITAT affirmed the ld. CIT(A)'s partial allowance by estimating payment at Rs. 2,500 per square yard and directing recomputation of cost of acquisition. Development expenses were allowed as per ld. CIT(A), the AO's reliance on an Inspector's belated and non-technical report being rejected. Revenue's grounds were dismissed.
ITAT upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) in material respects. Additions u/s 68 on account of sundry creditors were rejected, as identity, creditworthiness and genuineness were established through confirmations and statements, and the AO had proceeded merely on suspicion without summoning most creditors. In respect of unsecured loans, ITAT confirmed the sustained addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- relating to three depositors, as the assessee did not press her appeal; deletions for the remaining amounts were upheld. For expenses incurred in vacating encroachers, ITAT affirmed the ld. CIT(A)'s partial allowance by estimating payment at Rs. 2,500 per square yard and directing recomputation of cost of acquisition. Development expenses were allowed as per ld. CIT(A), the AO's reliance on an Inspector's belated and non-technical report being rejected. Revenue's grounds were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
