Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
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...
Bogus LTCG - Addition u/s 68 - Statement of the assessee recorded during investigation leads to the irresistible conclusion that the assessee has not discharged his onus to prove that the entire transaction was genuine because it is incomprehensible that a person, assessee in this case, who is constantly in touch with the person since 25.06.2012 when he has purchased the scrips by making payment through undisclosed cash, then got the scrips dematerialized on 30.12.2013 only after legalizing the amount through IDS, 2016, thereafter he got the same amount returned and paid him the amount through cheque on 31.12.2013, but strangely stated that, “I do not particularly know the parties from whom or to whom he bought and sold the shares”. - CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO - AT
Bogus LTCG - Addition u/s 68 - Statement of the assessee recorded during investigation leads to the irresistible conclusion that the assessee has not discharged his onus to prove that the entire transaction was genuine because it is incomprehensible that a person, assessee in this case, who is constantly in touch with the person since 25.06.2012 when he has purchased the scrips by making payment through undisclosed cash, then got the scrips dematerialized on 30.12.2013 only after legalizing the amount through IDS, 2016, thereafter he got the same amount returned and paid him the amount through cheque on 31.12.2013, but strangely stated that, “I do not particularly know the parties from whom or to whom he bought and sold the shares”. - CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
