Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
An inchoate agreement to sell, lacking execution by both parties and showing patent ambiguity, could not be treated as conclusive evidence of receipt of unaccounted on-money. The Tribunal held that an admission must be clear, unambiguous and unconditional, and that the seized document, without material particulars such as witness details or the drafter's identity and without the beneficiary's participation, did not justify an inference of undisclosed cash receipts. The additions based on that document were therefore deleted, and the consequential penalty was also deleted.
An inchoate agreement to sell, lacking execution by both parties and showing patent ambiguity, could not be treated as conclusive evidence of receipt of unaccounted on-money. The Tribunal held that an admission must be clear, unambiguous and unconditional, and that the seized document, without material particulars such as witness details or the drafter's identity and without the beneficiary's participation, did not justify an inference of undisclosed cash receipts. The additions based on that document were therefore deleted, and the consequential penalty was also deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
