Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CIT(A) determined profit at 5.47% on total purchases. Assessee produced sufficient evidence regarding purchases, movement of goods, GST payment on transportation, expenses accounted for. No evidence of routing back payments. CIT(A) endorsed assessee's contentions but erred in directing gross profit rate application, defying logic. Assessee discharged onus, furnished abundant evidence substantiating purchases' genuineness. CIT(A) erred in sustaining gross profit addition on alleged purchases over declared profit. Gross profit determined by CIT(A) directed to be deleted. Addition u/s 56(2)(x) for difference between purchase price and stamp duty value of property purchased, without referring valuation to DVO, is unsustainable and liable to be deleted. AO bound to refer valuation to DVO when assessee disputes stamp duty value. Addition by AO and confirmation by CIT(A), without DVO reference, unsustainable and deleted in assessee's favor.
CIT(A) determined profit at 5.47% on total purchases. Assessee produced sufficient evidence regarding purchases, movement of goods, GST payment on transportation, expenses accounted for. No evidence of routing back payments. CIT(A) endorsed assessee's contentions but erred in directing gross profit rate application, defying logic. Assessee discharged onus, furnished abundant evidence substantiating purchases' genuineness. CIT(A) erred in sustaining gross profit addition on alleged purchases over declared profit. Gross profit determined by CIT(A) directed to be deleted. Addition u/s 56(2)(x) for difference between purchase price and stamp duty value of property purchased, without referring valuation to DVO, is unsustainable and liable to be deleted. AO bound to refer valuation to DVO when assessee disputes stamp duty value. Addition by AO and confirmation by CIT(A), without DVO reference, unsustainable and deleted in assessee's favor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.