ITAT Mumbai held that the Revenue has failed to prove with any cogent evidence on record that the assessee was involved in converting his unaccounted money into long-term capital gains and short-term capital gains by conniving with any entry operator/exit provider. Accordingly, addition u/s 68 merely on the basis of suspicion unsustainable.
Explore the implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Cosmos Films case on the pre-import condition and its impact on exporters benefiting from the Advance Authorization scheme. The article analyzes Circular No.16/2023-Cus issued by the CBIC, aiming to provide clarity on recrediting/refunding taxes due to the judgment. Delve into the background of the Foreign Trade Policy amendments, the Gujarat High Court’s intervention, and the subsequent Supreme Court ruling.
BSE and NSE had released another circular on March 31, 2023, providing an additional list of items under Schedule III that need to be disclosed in XBRL format.
CESTAT Kolkata rules compensation received by Buyer on cancellation of Agreement to Sell immovable property not subject to Service Tax under Section 66E(e). Observes compensation for non-fulfillment by Seller doesn’t fall under ‘Declared Service’.
During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO made an estimated addition to the household drawings as the assessee did not provide a plausible reply to justify the expenses considering their family’s constitution and standard of living.
Section 44AD of the Income tax Act is one of the most important sections which come in to use most frequently. There is a misconception / issue regarding the interpretation of the provisions of this section, regarding declaration of profits at minimum 8% / 6% rate even though the actual net profit earned is more.
Analyzing the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to grant bail to Amrinder Singh in a tax evasion case, considering that the co-accused had already been granted bail.
ITAT Delhi held that TDS not deductible u/s 195(1) on the reimbursement of mobilization and demobilization cost to the holding company. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) unsustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Pr.CIT’s view that entire cash deposits during demonetization is to be treated as unexplained, is contrary to the facts on record, as assessee has demonstrated the factum of huge turnover prior to and post demonetization. Accordingly, Pr.CIT’s finding of error in AO’s order is based on incorrect appreciation of facts and accordingly revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 unsustainable.
ITAT Raipur held that addition u/s 68 towards unsecured loan received by assessee treating the same as bogus based on mere presumptions and suspect is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
