Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Whether the show-cause notice under section 24(1) was validly issued and whether the appellant discharged the burden to prove ownership of seized cash: the tribunal held that written "reasons to believe" were recorded prior to and incorporated in the notice as required by the statute and conveyed to the appellant, so the notice was valid; on the substantive issue the appellant failed to produce conclusive, legally admissible evidence (books of account, reliable third-party proof) to establish ownership or source of the cash, rendering explanations inconsistent and after-thoughts-consequence: the impugned order was upheld and no interference granted. - AT
Whether the show-cause notice under section 24(1) was validly issued and whether the appellant discharged the burden to prove ownership of seized cash: the tribunal held that written "reasons to believe" were recorded prior to and incorporated in the notice as required by the statute and conveyed to the appellant, so the notice was valid; on the substantive issue the appellant failed to produce conclusive, legally admissible evidence (books of account, reliable third-party proof) to establish ownership or source of the cash, rendering explanations inconsistent and after-thoughts-consequence: the impugned order was upheld and no interference granted. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
