Approved gratuity fund provisions remain deductible despite general actual-payment requirements, preventing revision of the allowed gratuity deduction...
Verification of intangible software expenditure and duplicated disallowances requires record-based reassessment before depreciation and income computa...
Cash receipt aggregation requires a single transaction, event or occasion; separate partner capital contributions cannot attract cash-receipt penaltie...
Reopening of assessment concerned unexplained payment and alleged difference between stamp duty value and consideration under valuation provisions; appellate note records that the assessee, a non-resident, failed to substantiate a Rs.7,00,000 payment and was not questioned on the valuation difference. The appellate authority found the first appellate order disposed for nonprosecution without merits and the assessing officer did not verify payment dates or bank records. The tribunal directed restoration to the assessing officer for a fresh opportunity to the assessee to substantiate source of funds and to explain the stamp duty versus registration value (difference found less than 10%). Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Reopening of assessment concerned unexplained payment and alleged difference between stamp duty value and consideration under valuation provisions; appellate note records that the assessee, a non-resident, failed to substantiate a Rs.7,00,000 payment and was not questioned on the valuation difference. The appellate authority found the first appellate order disposed for nonprosecution without merits and the assessing officer did not verify payment dates or bank records. The tribunal directed restoration to the assessing officer for a fresh opportunity to the assessee to substantiate source of funds and to explain the stamp duty versus registration value (difference found less than 10%). Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4925 
