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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Appellate authorities may entertain a fresh deduction claim even if no revised return was filed, so long as the material needed to examine the claim is already on record; the restriction on fresh claims applies to the Assessing Officer, not to appellate jurisdiction. Here, the assessee had disclosed that commission expenditure was being deferred for claim on payment, and the Assessing Officer did not reject the claim for want of a revised return. After remand, the Assessing Officer was required to verify the quantum and nature of the commission services but failed to do so despite the details being furnished. The Tribunal also relied on acceptance of similar expenditure in other years, and the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose.
Appellate authorities may entertain a fresh deduction claim even if no revised return was filed, so long as the material needed to examine the claim is already on record; the restriction on fresh claims applies to the Assessing Officer, not to appellate jurisdiction. Here, the assessee had disclosed that commission expenditure was being deferred for claim on payment, and the Assessing Officer did not reject the claim for want of a revised return. After remand, the Assessing Officer was required to verify the quantum and nature of the commission services but failed to do so despite the details being furnished. The Tribunal also relied on acceptance of similar expenditure in other years, and the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.