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...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 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" ?
The Tribunal held that retention and continued freezing of immovable and movable properties could not rest on a non-speaking order that merely reproduced pleadings and recorded only prima facie observations. After considering the reply, hearing the parties and the material on record, the Adjudicating Authority had to independently determine whether any property was involved in money-laundering under section 8. Mere pendency of investigation was insufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the presumption under section 24(a) applies only after foundational facts are established and must remain rebuttable. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh de novo adjudication, with status quo to continue.
The Tribunal held that retention and continued freezing of immovable and movable properties could not rest on a non-speaking order that merely reproduced pleadings and recorded only prima facie observations. After considering the reply, hearing the parties and the material on record, the Adjudicating Authority had to independently determine whether any property was involved in money-laundering under section 8. Mere pendency of investigation was insufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the presumption under section 24(a) applies only after foundational facts are established and must remain rebuttable. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh de novo adjudication, with status quo to continue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
