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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Additions based only on an impounded diary and survey disclosure were deleted because the Assessing Officer had no corroborative material, and the concluded land transaction made the alleged later cash payment improbable; the retraction was accepted and no substantial question of law arose. On the separate issue of unexplained investment, cash receipts recorded in the same diary were telescoped against the investment already offered to tax, preventing double taxation; this too was treated as a factual finding with no substantial question of law. The Revenue's challenges therefore failed and its appeals were dismissed.
Additions based only on an impounded diary and survey disclosure were deleted because the Assessing Officer had no corroborative material, and the concluded land transaction made the alleged later cash payment improbable; the retraction was accepted and no substantial question of law arose. On the separate issue of unexplained investment, cash receipts recorded in the same diary were telescoped against the investment already offered to tax, preventing double taxation; this too was treated as a factual finding with no substantial question of law. The Revenue's challenges therefore failed and its appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.