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...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Unexplained credits u/s. 68 - cash claimed to have been received by the assessee from recovery of farmers' advances earlier granted - onus to prove - The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee, a corporate entity engaged in sugar manufacturing, had regularly advanced money to sugarcane farmers to secure raw materials. These advances, reflected in the financial statements as 'receivables', were substantiated by the assessee through various documents and submissions during the assessment proceedings. - The ITAT found no basis to classify these deposits as unexplained under Section 68 or Section 69A of the Act. The tribunal emphasized that the AO's addition constituted a double addition for the same amount in two different assessment years, which was unjustified.
Unexplained credits u/s. 68 - cash claimed to have been received by the assessee from recovery of farmers' advances earlier granted - onus to prove - The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee, a corporate entity engaged in sugar manufacturing, had regularly advanced money to sugarcane farmers to secure raw materials. These advances, reflected in the financial statements as 'receivables', were substantiated by the assessee through various documents and submissions during the assessment proceedings. - The ITAT found no basis to classify these deposits as unexplained under Section 68 or Section 69A of the Act. The tribunal emphasized that the AO's addition constituted a double addition for the same amount in two different assessment years, which was unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
