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 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95633 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 were made, and the assessee provided a statement on oath, affidavits from the vendor, and explanations about the vendor's father's ill health and jail term, as well as the precondition of cash payment for the land deal. The appellate authority erred in rejecting these submissions and not considering business expediency. Regarding development expenses, the assessing officer disallowed 10% due to lack of vouchers, which was reduced to 5% by the appellate authority. Since no further evidence was produced, the Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with the appellate authority's order on this issue.
Cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 were made, and the assessee provided a statement on oath, affidavits from the vendor, and explanations about the vendor's father's ill health and jail term, as well as the precondition of cash payment for the land deal. The appellate authority erred in rejecting these submissions and not considering business expediency. Regarding development expenses, the assessing officer disallowed 10% due to lack of vouchers, which was reduced to 5% by the appellate authority. Since no further evidence was produced, the Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with the appellate authority's order on this issue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.