Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee-company (A Co.), engaged in manufacturing and trading of agro-based products, and deleted the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The AO had invoked s.40A(3) on cash payments by A Co. purportedly as expenditure, and CIT(A) had upheld the addition due to absence of evidence that such expenses were incurred on behalf of another entity (B Ltd.) and reimbursed. ITAT held that the AO's addition was based solely on the ledger account in B Ltd.'s books and that no contrary material disproved A Co.'s claim that the cash payments were made on behalf of B Ltd. Further, A Co. had not claimed these payments as its own expenditure. Consequently, ITAT ruled that any expenditure, if at all, pertained to B Ltd., not A Co., and no disallowance u/s 40A(3) was sustainable in A Co.'s hands.
ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee-company (A Co.), engaged in manufacturing and trading of agro-based products, and deleted the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The AO had invoked s.40A(3) on cash payments by A Co. purportedly as expenditure, and CIT(A) had upheld the addition due to absence of evidence that such expenses were incurred on behalf of another entity (B Ltd.) and reimbursed. ITAT held that the AO's addition was based solely on the ledger account in B Ltd.'s books and that no contrary material disproved A Co.'s claim that the cash payments were made on behalf of B Ltd. Further, A Co. had not claimed these payments as its own expenditure. Consequently, ITAT ruled that any expenditure, if at all, pertained to B Ltd., not A Co., and no disallowance u/s 40A(3) was sustainable in A Co.'s hands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
