Investigation deposits refunded after failed customs demands fall outside the statutory appellate pre-deposit interest regime and may attract compensa...
Resolution plan finality extinguishes unquantified operational-creditor claims and pending proceedings unless the approved plan expressly preserves th...
Stakeholder-list modification permits liquidators to update entries on new information, subject to notifying the Adjudicating Authority within prescri...
The appellant could not establish the source for cash deposits during demonetization. The Appellate Tribunal held that sales cannot be rejected solely based on higher sales compared to previous periods. The explanation of receiving cash from customers for jewelry sales was considered reasonable. The appellant provided evidence of sufficient cash withdrawals before demonetization, supporting the cash deposits. The Tribunal found the explanation satisfactory, citing a precedent. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions by the Commissioner, dismissing the revenue's appeal.
The appellant could not establish the source for cash deposits during demonetization. The Appellate Tribunal held that sales cannot be rejected solely based on higher sales compared to previous periods. The explanation of receiving cash from customers for jewelry sales was considered reasonable. The appellant provided evidence of sufficient cash withdrawals before demonetization, supporting the cash deposits. The Tribunal found the explanation satisfactory, citing a precedent. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions by the Commissioner, dismissing the revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
