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...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The legal judgment addressed various issues. Firstly, regarding addition u/s 68 for unsecured loans, the AO questioned the creditworthiness of the loans. The CIT(A) deleted the additions as the appellant provided detailed evidence of the loans' identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The AO's additions were based on surmises and incorrect facts, with issued summons to the wrong address. The appeal on this ground was dismissed. Secondly, ad-hoc disallowance of expenses was made despite the appellant submitting evidence. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition, and the appeal on this ground was dismissed. Lastly, the deduction u/s 80IA was initially denied due to the appellant not being an Indian company. However, based on precedents like ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. and BMW Industries Ltd., the deduction was allowed by the CIT(A).
The legal judgment addressed various issues. Firstly, regarding addition u/s 68 for unsecured loans, the AO questioned the creditworthiness of the loans. The CIT(A) deleted the additions as the appellant provided detailed evidence of the loans' identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The AO's additions were based on surmises and incorrect facts, with issued summons to the wrong address. The appeal on this ground was dismissed. Secondly, ad-hoc disallowance of expenses was made despite the appellant submitting evidence. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition, and the appeal on this ground was dismissed. Lastly, the deduction u/s 80IA was initially denied due to the appellant not being an Indian company. However, based on precedents like ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. and BMW Industries Ltd., the deduction was allowed by the CIT(A).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
