Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Bogus purchases and estimation of income were examined where the CIT(A) had directed the AO to add only the gross profit element in respect of purchases from four alleged suppliers. The tribunal found the assessee's construction activity undisputed and concluded purchases were actually from other parties yielding profits higher than the disclosed GP rate, so the CIT(A)'s restriction was incorrect. Applying jurisdictional High Court precedent that taxes only the profit margin in bogus purchases, the ITAT restricted the addition for the four non existent parties to 5% above the assessee's disclosed GP rate and partly allowed the revenue appeal.
Bogus purchases and estimation of income were examined where the CIT(A) had directed the AO to add only the gross profit element in respect of purchases from four alleged suppliers. The tribunal found the assessee's construction activity undisputed and concluded purchases were actually from other parties yielding profits higher than the disclosed GP rate, so the CIT(A)'s restriction was incorrect. Applying jurisdictional High Court precedent that taxes only the profit margin in bogus purchases, the ITAT restricted the addition for the four non existent parties to 5% above the assessee's disclosed GP rate and partly allowed the revenue appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.