Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Additions for unexplained money failed where the Revenue relied on presumption without independent corroboration. For the alleged cash payment to or on behalf of Ms. Jwala Gutta, the Tribunal found that the seized material did not establish that the assessee himself made any cash payment, and there was no confirmation from Ms. Gutta or other supporting evidence; the addition was deleted. For the alleged cash component of marriage expenses, the Assessing Officer made no enquiry from the recipient and did not properly examine the possibility of funding from Shagun receipts, so the addition was also deleted. The Tribunal treated both additions as unsupported by evidence and allowed the appeal, with the same view applied to the other assessment years.
Additions for unexplained money failed where the Revenue relied on presumption without independent corroboration. For the alleged cash payment to or on behalf of Ms. Jwala Gutta, the Tribunal found that the seized material did not establish that the assessee himself made any cash payment, and there was no confirmation from Ms. Gutta or other supporting evidence; the addition was deleted. For the alleged cash component of marriage expenses, the Assessing Officer made no enquiry from the recipient and did not properly examine the possibility of funding from Shagun receipts, so the addition was also deleted. The Tribunal treated both additions as unsupported by evidence and allowed the appeal, with the same view applied to the other assessment years.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.