This article explains how consumer law regulates brand endorsements. The key takeaway is that endorsers face penalties only when misleading claims are proven without due diligence.
The Tribunal sustained reassessment based on search information but faulted the disallowance of political donations. The key takeaway is that additions cannot rest solely on untested third-party statements without cross-examination.
Where real estate sale proceeds and donations are transparently reflected in financial statements, unexplained money provisions fail. The decision reinforces limits on Revenues powers based on conjecture.
The Tribunal held that an enforceable agreement to sell, supported by advance consideration, constitutes transfer under Section 2(47), entitling the assessee to Section 54 relief.
The Tribunal restored the Assessing Officers action after finding clear admission of issuing accommodation bills. Commission at 1% was rightly taxed on both bogus purchases and bogus sales.
The Tribunal held that a general survey admission by the seller cannot justify additions in every buyers case. Documentary proof of purchases and sales outweighed unsupported allegations.
The Tribunal held that an unsigned notice under Section 148 is invalid and does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the entire reassessment and additions were quashed as void ab initio.
The tax authorities made an addition without examining the lenders bank records. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify fund availability and absence of cash deposits.
The court held that additions for excess stock and cash cannot be sustained when based solely on a survey statement under Section 133A, reaffirming that such statements lack conclusive evidentiary value.
The court held that failure to apply Clause 3(d) of the RBI Master Circular invalidated the wilful defaulter declaration. Non-Executive Directors cannot be tagged without strict proof of knowledge, consent, or connivance.
