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...
The case involved a dispute over unjust enrichment where the appellant was required to prove that customers received machines/equipment as invoiced. The Revenue failed to investigate with customers or transporters. Goods seized by Revenue were linked to the invoices. The appellant did not confirm clearance of goods. The Commissioner(Appeals) approved a refund, finding the appellant paid duty twice. The order was upheld, dismissing Revenue's appeal. The issue of unjust enrichment was referred for further verification.
The case involved a dispute over unjust enrichment where the appellant was required to prove that customers received machines/equipment as invoiced. The Revenue failed to investigate with customers or transporters. Goods seized by Revenue were linked to the invoices. The appellant did not confirm clearance of goods. The Commissioner(Appeals) approved a refund, finding the appellant paid duty twice. The order was upheld, dismissing Revenue's appeal. The issue of unjust enrichment was referred for further verification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
