Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
A scrutiny assessment challenge based on alleged non-compliance with CBDT scrutiny-selection instructions was rejected, the Tribunal following binding jurisdictional High Court precedent. The rent-related disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was deleted to the extent tax was not deductible, including rent paid to Haryana Urban Development Authority. In the bogus purchase dispute, the Tribunal upheld partial relief and gross profit estimation at 2.37% on market-comparable reasoning, and applied the same approach to the connected unexplained expenditure issue. The estimated addition on sundry creditors was rejected because no individual credit entries were examined and the purchases stood accepted. The related-party salary disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) was also upheld as deleted on revenue-neutrality grounds.
A scrutiny assessment challenge based on alleged non-compliance with CBDT scrutiny-selection instructions was rejected, the Tribunal following binding jurisdictional High Court precedent. The rent-related disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was deleted to the extent tax was not deductible, including rent paid to Haryana Urban Development Authority. In the bogus purchase dispute, the Tribunal upheld partial relief and gross profit estimation at 2.37% on market-comparable reasoning, and applied the same approach to the connected unexplained expenditure issue. The estimated addition on sundry creditors was rejected because no individual credit entries were examined and the purchases stood accepted. The related-party salary disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) was also upheld as deleted on revenue-neutrality grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
