Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973. The appellant argued lack of material and violation of natural justice, requesting cross-examination of Sudhir Kapadia. The order lacked evidence linking the appellant to the alleged contravention. Sudhir Kapadia's statement was the sole basis, but he retracted it. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine him. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence against the appellant and set aside the order, highlighting the need for proper evidence and fair procedure.
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973. The appellant argued lack of material and violation of natural justice, requesting cross-examination of Sudhir Kapadia. The order lacked evidence linking the appellant to the alleged contravention. Sudhir Kapadia's statement was the sole basis, but he retracted it. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine him. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence against the appellant and set aside the order, highlighting the need for proper evidence and fair procedure.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
