Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Where seized diary and pen-drive material belonged to a third party, the rebuttable presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C did not apply against the assessee, so the Revenue had to produce independent corroborative evidence of actual cash receipts. As the loose sheets were not in the assessee's handwriting or signed by it, nothing was found from its premises, and the third party's retracted employee statements were not conclusive, the alleged cash receipts and the resulting profit estimation were deleted. On the alleged on-money entry, the Tribunal found no nexus between the seized material and any cash payment, and held the inference to be mere guesswork; that addition was also deleted.
Where seized diary and pen-drive material belonged to a third party, the rebuttable presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C did not apply against the assessee, so the Revenue had to produce independent corroborative evidence of actual cash receipts. As the loose sheets were not in the assessee's handwriting or signed by it, nothing was found from its premises, and the third party's retracted employee statements were not conclusive, the alleged cash receipts and the resulting profit estimation were deleted. On the alleged on-money entry, the Tribunal found no nexus between the seized material and any cash payment, and held the inference to be mere guesswork; that addition was also deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.