Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
A typographical error in the appellate directions led the Assessing Officer to retain part of a section 69 addition for unexplained investment, even though the draft assessment order had made a combined addition for time deposits and reportable transactions. The Tribunal read the reasoning in the directions as showing that both underlying components were meant to be deleted, and treated the differing aggregate figure as a clerical mistake. On that basis, no balance addition could survive in the final assessment order, and the retained amount was deleted.
A typographical error in the appellate directions led the Assessing Officer to retain part of a section 69 addition for unexplained investment, even though the draft assessment order had made a combined addition for time deposits and reportable transactions. The Tribunal read the reasoning in the directions as showing that both underlying components were meant to be deleted, and treated the differing aggregate figure as a clerical mistake. On that basis, no balance addition could survive in the final assessment order, and the retained amount was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
