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...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
421 to 440 of 95749 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Addition u/s 69A - cash loans given by the assessee as unexplained - decoding of the entries in the seized materials - The tribunal found that the assessing officer's reliance on statements recorded during the search was insufficient to justify the addition under section 69A. They emphasized that the assessing officer did not entertain the appellant's request for cross-examination, and the retracted statements raised doubts about their reliability. Additionally, the tribunal noted discrepancies in the interpretation of entries and the lack of concrete evidence connecting the appellant to the transactions. Therefore, they deemed the addition unjustified and deleted it.
Addition u/s 69A - cash loans given by the assessee as unexplained - decoding of the entries in the seized materials - The tribunal found that the assessing officer's reliance on statements recorded during the search was insufficient to justify the addition under section 69A. They emphasized that the assessing officer did not entertain the appellant's request for cross-examination, and the retracted statements raised doubts about their reliability. Additionally, the tribunal noted discrepancies in the interpretation of entries and the lack of concrete evidence connecting the appellant to the transactions. Therefore, they deemed the addition unjustified and deleted it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
