Penny-stock additions require transaction-specific evidence; general investigation material alone cannot establish undisclosed income or accommodation...
Transfer pricing comparability prioritises reliable external CUPs and foreign-currency LIBOR benchmarks for exports, borrowings and delayed receivable...
Section 153C satisfaction and seized electronic records sustained unexplained-investment addition, subject to proportionate ownership-share verificati...
Reopening of assessment on allegation of bogus invoices was held unjustified because ledger entries did not show escaped income and the AO treated Rs.3,67,43,973 as bogus purchase despite it being claimed as a deduction and linked to a later payment of Rs.5,13,02,342 following a DGGI survey. The petitioner was not called upon to explain the alleged bogus GST claim, and the High Court found procedural and substantive defects in the reassessment action. Consequently the notice under reopening and the impugned order were quashed and the writ petition allowed.
Reopening of assessment on allegation of bogus invoices was held unjustified because ledger entries did not show escaped income and the AO treated Rs.3,67,43,973 as bogus purchase despite it being claimed as a deduction and linked to a later payment of Rs.5,13,02,342 following a DGGI survey. The petitioner was not called upon to explain the alleged bogus GST claim, and the High Court found procedural and substantive defects in the reassessment action. Consequently the notice under reopening and the impugned order were quashed and the writ petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.