Tax determination against deceased proprietor invalid where no notice to legal representative; appeal rejected without addressing jurisdictional defec...
Revocation of GST registration and permission to file blocked returns; conditional defreezing of bank accounts after security and instalment applicati...
Right to access seized electronic evidence: impugned adjudication treated as additional show cause notice, remand for fresh hearing and return of mate...
Revisability of return invalidation communications under tax procedure affirmed, impugned non revisional finding quashed and matter remitted for fresh...
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 
