PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revenue's appeal before ITAT was dismissed. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s acceptance of additional evidence under Rule 46A, noting that the material was remanded to the AO and no remand report was furnished despite repeated reminders; thus there was no violation of Rule 46A. On merits, ITAT sustained CIT(A)'s deletion of additions relating to discrepancies in sales turnover, trade payables, and current liabilities, finding that reconciliations, third-party confirmations under s.133(6), and supporting records fully justified the assessee's position. ITAT also affirmed deletion of addition towards exceptional charges/expenses, holding that the assessee had already made a suo motu disallowance under s.37 and any further disallowance would result in double addition.
Revenue's appeal before ITAT was dismissed. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s acceptance of additional evidence under Rule 46A, noting that the material was remanded to the AO and no remand report was furnished despite repeated reminders; thus there was no violation of Rule 46A. On merits, ITAT sustained CIT(A)'s deletion of additions relating to discrepancies in sales turnover, trade payables, and current liabilities, finding that reconciliations, third-party confirmations under s.133(6), and supporting records fully justified the assessee's position. ITAT also affirmed deletion of addition towards exceptional charges/expenses, holding that the assessee had already made a suo motu disallowance under s.37 and any further disallowance would result in double addition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.