Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
Whether the impugned purchases constituted a benami transaction under s.2(9)(A) of the 1988 Act was determined against the appellant, as the sale deeds and contemporaneous documents showed the requisite arrangement between the ostensible owner and the beneficial owner, and bank statements established that consideration was paid directly by the appellant; consequently, the benami finding and related orders were upheld. Denial of cross-examination was rejected because such right is not automatic and the conclusion rested substantially on documentary evidence; hence no prejudice was shown. The challenge to attachment for want of notice under s.26(5) was rejected on a plain reading of the provision; attachment was sustained and the appeals were dismissed. - AT
Whether the impugned purchases constituted a benami transaction under s.2(9)(A) of the 1988 Act was determined against the appellant, as the sale deeds and contemporaneous documents showed the requisite arrangement between the ostensible owner and the beneficial owner, and bank statements established that consideration was paid directly by the appellant; consequently, the benami finding and related orders were upheld. Denial of cross-examination was rejected because such right is not automatic and the conclusion rested substantially on documentary evidence; hence no prejudice was shown. The challenge to attachment for want of notice under s.26(5) was rejected on a plain reading of the provision; attachment was sustained and the appeals were dismissed. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
