Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of addition u/s 69A with reference to cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee failed to establish the source of these deposits into a bank account, contrary to RBI and Government directives. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee, engaged in the dhall mill business, had consistent cash sales with no abnormal increase during demonetization. The assessee provided evidence of cash on hand before demonetization and claimed to have received demonetized currency from customers post the specified date. The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was genuine and acceptable, considering the nature of the business and submitted evidence. The AO and CIT(A) were criticized for not duly considering the relevant submissions, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of addition u/s 69A with reference to cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee failed to establish the source of these deposits into a bank account, contrary to RBI and Government directives. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee, engaged in the dhall mill business, had consistent cash sales with no abnormal increase during demonetization. The assessee provided evidence of cash on hand before demonetization and claimed to have received demonetized currency from customers post the specified date. The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was genuine and acceptable, considering the nature of the business and submitted evidence. The AO and CIT(A) were criticized for not duly considering the relevant submissions, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
