Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Natural justice and pre-CIRP labour awards protect termination compensation, permitting withdrawal of court deposits despite later insolvency resoluti...
Arbitration of SEZ sub-lease monetary claims preserves rent, maintenance, termination, improvements and damages disputes while unused premises are vac...
Scientific research approval grants a research association tax recognition, subject to annual donor reporting, certification, and regulatory complianc...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether revision under s.263 was justified where the AO, after finding purchases to be bogus and goods not received, made disallowance under s.37(1) instead of invoking s.69C read with s.115BBE. Since s.69C applies where an expenditure is claimed but the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain its source, and the factual findings showed the expenditure was unexplained and unsupported by evidence of receipt of goods, the statutory preconditions for s.69C were met. The AO's resort to s.37(1), absent any controversy on commercial expediency, rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; the revisionary directions were sustained and the assessee's challenge was rejected - ITAT
The dominant issue was whether revision under s.263 was justified where the AO, after finding purchases to be bogus and goods not received, made disallowance under s.37(1) instead of invoking s.69C read with s.115BBE. Since s.69C applies where an expenditure is claimed but the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain its source, and the factual findings showed the expenditure was unexplained and unsupported by evidence of receipt of goods, the statutory preconditions for s.69C were met. The AO's resort to s.37(1), absent any controversy on commercial expediency, rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; the revisionary directions were sustained and the assessee's challenge was rejected - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
