Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
Classification dispute for imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Appellant declared details, goods physically examined. No wilful suppression of facts attributable for Section 28(4) applicability. Earlier, Customs authorities permitted clearance under appellant's classification. Commissioner held Section 28(4) invoking provisions inapplicable, being a case of misclassification only. Correct classification accepted, differential duty paid upon informing. Impugned order set aside by Appellate Tribunal, appeal allowed.
Classification dispute for imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Appellant declared details, goods physically examined. No wilful suppression of facts attributable for Section 28(4) applicability. Earlier, Customs authorities permitted clearance under appellant's classification. Commissioner held Section 28(4) invoking provisions inapplicable, being a case of misclassification only. Correct classification accepted, differential duty paid upon informing. Impugned order set aside by Appellate Tribunal, appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
