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 held that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C was invalid as the seized document, being a copy of a ledger, did not "belong to" the assessee. The document merely recorded a transaction of Rs. 75 lakhs between two third parties, with no reference to the assessee-company. The satisfaction note by the AO incorrectly stated that the assessee had, by letter dated 16.06.2014, accepted the financial transactions reflected in the seized documents; in fact, the letter was filed by another group of companies which had owned the transactions. ITAT held that the AO failed to establish that the seized material pertained to, related to, or belonged to the assessee, and that such material had already been considered in the hands of the other group. Accordingly, the proceedings u/s 153C and the consequential additions were quashed.
ITAT held that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C was invalid as the seized document, being a copy of a ledger, did not "belong to" the assessee. The document merely recorded a transaction of Rs. 75 lakhs between two third parties, with no reference to the assessee-company. The satisfaction note by the AO incorrectly stated that the assessee had, by letter dated 16.06.2014, accepted the financial transactions reflected in the seized documents; in fact, the letter was filed by another group of companies which had owned the transactions. ITAT held that the AO failed to establish that the seized material pertained to, related to, or belonged to the assessee, and that such material had already been considered in the hands of the other group. Accordingly, the proceedings u/s 153C and the consequential additions were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.