Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The assessee received cash credits which were treated as unexplained income u/s 68 by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, observing that apart from the first two payments made on the transaction date, the third payment was received in advance by the assessee through banking channels. The Revenue only raised doubts about the sales bills but did not dispute the receipt of money. The assessee furnished stock statements, and the Revenue did not raise any doubts. Since the sales transaction was declared as revenue receipt, the Tribunal found no infirmity in deleting the addition u/s 68. Regarding the cash deposit addition, the assessee submitted relevant records like sales register, purchase register, stock statement, cash book, bank book, and bank statements. The AO made the addition u/s 68 solely because the assessee showed cash sales on a single day, without appreciating that it was the day of demonetization announcement when people anxiously converted old currency notes into other forms like gold. In the absence of any material to doubt the availability of gold stock, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the cash deposit addition, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
The assessee received cash credits which were treated as unexplained income u/s 68 by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, observing that apart from the first two payments made on the transaction date, the third payment was received in advance by the assessee through banking channels. The Revenue only raised doubts about the sales bills but did not dispute the receipt of money. The assessee furnished stock statements, and the Revenue did not raise any doubts. Since the sales transaction was declared as revenue receipt, the Tribunal found no infirmity in deleting the addition u/s 68. Regarding the cash deposit addition, the assessee submitted relevant records like sales register, purchase register, stock statement, cash book, bank book, and bank statements. The AO made the addition u/s 68 solely because the assessee showed cash sales on a single day, without appreciating that it was the day of demonetization announcement when people anxiously converted old currency notes into other forms like gold. In the absence of any material to doubt the availability of gold stock, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the cash deposit addition, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
