Allocation of registration charges: contractual clause overriding statutory presumption allowed as deduction against capital gain after unrebutted doc...
Expenditure tied to investments yielding exempt income restricted to attributable costs; broader disallowance disallowed and adjustments to WDV and mi...
Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties an...
Classification of printed technical documents: specific Chapter 49.01 entry prevails, enabling claimed customs exemptions for imported manuals and rep...
The article addresses challenge to tax additions treating...
Genuineness of investment evidence determines LTCG entitlement; non specific regulatory reports cannot displace transaction specific documentary proof.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The article addresses challenge to tax additions treating claimed long term capital gains as non genuine and invoking unexplained cash credit and alleged commission additions; it explains that where the assessee produced DEMAT records, bank statements, cheques, share certificates and broker notes and had paid MAT, the authorities erred in rejecting LTCG claim on a generalized SEBI modus operandi suspicion because cited SEBI orders did not pertain to the assessee's transactions; the piece concludes that evidentiary burden requires transaction specific adverse findings and that similar findings apply to the subsequent assessment year, leading to allowance of the appeals.
The article addresses challenge to tax additions treating claimed long term capital gains as non genuine and invoking unexplained cash credit and alleged commission additions; it explains that where the assessee produced DEMAT records, bank statements, cheques, share certificates and broker notes and had paid MAT, the authorities erred in rejecting LTCG claim on a generalized SEBI modus operandi suspicion because cited SEBI orders did not pertain to the assessee's transactions; the piece concludes that evidentiary burden requires transaction specific adverse findings and that similar findings apply to the subsequent assessment year, leading to allowance of the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
