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 considered an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 and an application for additional evidence. The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed u/s 144 and the assessee provided an explanation for non-appearance, the CIT (A) should have considered the request for additional evidence. The Tribunal found the additional evidence crucial for deciding the case, especially regarding the claim for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). As a result, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter to the CIT (A) for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee an opportunity to support their claim. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case, and the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Appellate Tribunal considered an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 and an application for additional evidence. The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed u/s 144 and the assessee provided an explanation for non-appearance, the CIT (A) should have considered the request for additional evidence. The Tribunal found the additional evidence crucial for deciding the case, especially regarding the claim for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). As a result, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter to the CIT (A) for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee an opportunity to support their claim. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case, and the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
