Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The assessee challenged the addition made u/s 69A for non-payment of advance tax, claiming the assessment proceedings were initiated based on wrong information. The Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, examined the material and found that the Assessing Officer erroneously initiated proceedings u/s 148, assuming the assessee had purchased an immovable property for Rs. 45 lakhs from Shri Madhava Gatti. However, the assessee produced the sale deed showing the purchase was from Mr. Madhava Gatti for Rs. 31 lakhs and provided the source of funds as a loan from Vijaya Bank. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the basis for the addition did not survive and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A, allowing the assessee's appeal.
The assessee challenged the addition made u/s 69A for non-payment of advance tax, claiming the assessment proceedings were initiated based on wrong information. The Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, examined the material and found that the Assessing Officer erroneously initiated proceedings u/s 148, assuming the assessee had purchased an immovable property for Rs. 45 lakhs from Shri Madhava Gatti. However, the assessee produced the sale deed showing the purchase was from Mr. Madhava Gatti for Rs. 31 lakhs and provided the source of funds as a loan from Vijaya Bank. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the basis for the addition did not survive and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
