Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Alleged embezzlement/misappropriation payments were not allowable as business expenditure because the assessee adopted contradictory characterisations, produced no agreements, bills or particulars identifying the role or benefit to the alleged misappropriator, and did not pursue recovery; the Tribunal's disallowance was sustained. Payments to a partner's relative were disallowed under the provision permitting the assessing officer to strike down excessive or unreasonable related party payments in absence of documentary support; that application was upheld. Reassessment was within limitation because the escaped income exceeded the statutory threshold, bringing the longer limitation period into play; the notice was therefore valid and the appeal dismissed.
Alleged embezzlement/misappropriation payments were not allowable as business expenditure because the assessee adopted contradictory characterisations, produced no agreements, bills or particulars identifying the role or benefit to the alleged misappropriator, and did not pursue recovery; the Tribunal's disallowance was sustained. Payments to a partner's relative were disallowed under the provision permitting the assessing officer to strike down excessive or unreasonable related party payments in absence of documentary support; that application was upheld. Reassessment was within limitation because the escaped income exceeded the statutory threshold, bringing the longer limitation period into play; the notice was therefore valid and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
