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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the revised return of income filed by the assessee cannot be treated as invalid by the Assessing Officer (AO). Since the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) based on the revised return and completed the assessment considering the same, the revised return should be deemed valid. Consequently, no addition u/s 68 for the cash difference between the original and revised returns is warranted. Further, the Tribunal observed that the Department did not dispute the turnover admitted in the revised VAT returns, which reflected an increase in sales. The closing stock and cash on hand matched the cash deposits in the bank account. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was unjustified.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the revised return of income filed by the assessee cannot be treated as invalid by the Assessing Officer (AO). Since the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) based on the revised return and completed the assessment considering the same, the revised return should be deemed valid. Consequently, no addition u/s 68 for the cash difference between the original and revised returns is warranted. Further, the Tribunal observed that the Department did not dispute the turnover admitted in the revised VAT returns, which reflected an increase in sales. The closing stock and cash on hand matched the cash deposits in the bank account. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
