Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
ITAT upheld the reassessment notice because the record showed prior approval of the Principal Commissioner on the notice under section 148A(b), and both the notice and approval were within the statutory time limit, so the challenge on limitation and lack of approval failed. On disputed bogus purchases, the Tribunal held that invoices, ledgers and banking entries were not enough where Investigation Wing and GST material indicated accommodation entry suppliers and there were deficiencies in transport and purchase-to-sale linkage. It found that the existing factual examination was inadequate to sustain either full disallowance or a restriction to 15%, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and enquiries.
ITAT upheld the reassessment notice because the record showed prior approval of the Principal Commissioner on the notice under section 148A(b), and both the notice and approval were within the statutory time limit, so the challenge on limitation and lack of approval failed. On disputed bogus purchases, the Tribunal held that invoices, ledgers and banking entries were not enough where Investigation Wing and GST material indicated accommodation entry suppliers and there were deficiencies in transport and purchase-to-sale linkage. It found that the existing factual examination was inadequate to sustain either full disallowance or a restriction to 15%, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and enquiries.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.