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...
A prior unsuccessful revision under section 264 did not bar the assessee from pursuing the statutory appellate remedy, as the right of appeal is a substantive statutory right and no provision prohibited recourse to appeal after an earlier bona fide attempt at revision. The Tribunal also accepted sufficient cause for the delay before the first appellate authority and rejected the non-maintainability finding. On merits, cash deposits made during demonetisation were supported by bank records and supporting documents showing withdrawals for house construction and their later redeposit, so the addition under section 69A was held to rest on mere guesswork and was deleted.
A prior unsuccessful revision under section 264 did not bar the assessee from pursuing the statutory appellate remedy, as the right of appeal is a substantive statutory right and no provision prohibited recourse to appeal after an earlier bona fide attempt at revision. The Tribunal also accepted sufficient cause for the delay before the first appellate authority and rejected the non-maintainability finding. On merits, cash deposits made during demonetisation were supported by bank records and supporting documents showing withdrawals for house construction and their later redeposit, so the addition under section 69A was held to rest on mere guesswork and was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
