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...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
