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...
Revision u/s 263 - The principal of the law emanating that when two views are legally possible and AO adopts one view the Assessment Order cannot be said to be erroneous for the CIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263. In this case the AO has taken one of the possible Legal View. Hence, the Assessment Order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. - AT
Revision u/s 263 - The principal of the law emanating that when two views are legally possible and AO adopts one view the Assessment Order cannot be said to be erroneous for the CIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263. In this case the AO has taken one of the possible Legal View. Hence, the Assessment Order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.