Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
Whether an outstanding loan liability could be taxed as remission/cessation under s.41(1) was rejected because s.41(1) requires a prior allowance/deduction and a trading liability that is remitted/ceased, typically evidenced by write-back/credit to P&L; here the amount was a capital loan used to repay a bank loan, no expenditure had been debited, no recovery was shown, and the liability remained acknowledged and continuously outstanding in the books, hence deletion of the addition was upheld. The plea of breach of r.46A failed as no additional evidence was filed before the first appellate authority, so r.46A was not attracted. Explanation 1 to s.41(1) was held inapplicable due to absence of any unilateral write-off of a trading liability. - ITAT
Whether an outstanding loan liability could be taxed as remission/cessation under s.41(1) was rejected because s.41(1) requires a prior allowance/deduction and a trading liability that is remitted/ceased, typically evidenced by write-back/credit to P&L; here the amount was a capital loan used to repay a bank loan, no expenditure had been debited, no recovery was shown, and the liability remained acknowledged and continuously outstanding in the books, hence deletion of the addition was upheld. The plea of breach of r.46A failed as no additional evidence was filed before the first appellate authority, so r.46A was not attracted. Explanation 1 to s.41(1) was held inapplicable due to absence of any unilateral write-off of a trading liability. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.