Genuineness of investment evidence determines LTCG entitlement; non specific regulatory reports cannot displace transaction specific documentary proof...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5881 to 5900 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
