Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
An ITAT deleted an addition under section 69C for alleged on-money payment because the assessment rested only on an investigation report, a seized excel sheet naming another person, and a general builder's employee statement. The assessee's banking-channel payment evidence was not rebutted, and no independent corroboration of cash payment was brought on record. The third-party statement was untested by cross-examination and could not, by itself, sustain the addition. The appeal was partly allowed.
An ITAT deleted an addition under section 69C for alleged on-money payment because the assessment rested only on an investigation report, a seized excel sheet naming another person, and a general builder's employee statement. The assessee's banking-channel payment evidence was not rebutted, and no independent corroboration of cash payment was brought on record. The third-party statement was untested by cross-examination and could not, by itself, sustain the addition. The appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.