Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

Search assessment disputes: section 68 credits, bogus purchases, stock reconciliation and seized-noting verification shaped the tribunal's findings.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The Tribunal examined multiple search-related assessment issues, including section 68 cash credits, section 69C unexplained expenditure, bogus purchases, stock discrepancy, employees' contribution disallowance, and section 153A jurisdiction. It held that primary evidence such as confirmations, PAN, returns and bank statements was sufficient for section 68, and the Revenue had to conduct independent verification; the source of source was not required on these facts. It also sustained only the profit element in disputed purchases, deleted a stock-difference addition after reconciliation and valuation defects, remanded one seized-noting issue for fresh verification, upheld disallowance of delayed employees' contribution, and rejected the challenge to assessments based on seized material.....