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...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues. Firstly, regarding speculative transactions u/s 43(5), it was determined that the transactions of purchasing and selling canola oil on high seas did not qualify as speculative as actual delivery of goods occurred to the ultimate buyer. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that physical delivery to the ultimate purchaser exempts transactions from being deemed speculative. Secondly, concerning the addition as interest income u/s 36(1)(iii), the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. It was noted that the audited balance sheet substantiated the availability of interest-free funds, which were deemed adequate to cover the interest-free advances made. Following a Supreme Court decision, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues. Firstly, regarding speculative transactions u/s 43(5), it was determined that the transactions of purchasing and selling canola oil on high seas did not qualify as speculative as actual delivery of goods occurred to the ultimate buyer. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that physical delivery to the ultimate purchaser exempts transactions from being deemed speculative. Secondly, concerning the addition as interest income u/s 36(1)(iii), the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. It was noted that the audited balance sheet substantiated the availability of interest-free funds, which were deemed adequate to cover the interest-free advances made. Following a Supreme Court decision, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
