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...
Assessee engaged in business of commission agent (Aadatia) for agricultural products. AO made addition u/s 68 treating entire cash deposits in bank account as unexplained, alleging undisclosed trading activity. CIT(A) deleted addition after considering cash books, ledgers, bank statements of three proprietorship concerns, observing cash deposits duly recorded relating to consignment sales over Rs. 17 crores, part received in cash. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting AO failed to rebut assessee's explanation that cash deposits represented sale proceeds received on farmers' behalf, incidental to commission income. AO could have cross-verified from Mandi Samiti records but didn't. Only real income taxable, AO erred by taxing receipts instead of commission income. CIT(A) also deleted 25% disallowance of expenses made by AO, as assessee substantiated salary payments through evidence like employee confirmations, volume of Rs. 17 crore business necessitating manpower. ITAT found no infirmity in CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order based on evidence. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Assessee engaged in business of commission agent (Aadatia) for agricultural products. AO made addition u/s 68 treating entire cash deposits in bank account as unexplained, alleging undisclosed trading activity. CIT(A) deleted addition after considering cash books, ledgers, bank statements of three proprietorship concerns, observing cash deposits duly recorded relating to consignment sales over Rs. 17 crores, part received in cash. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting AO failed to rebut assessee's explanation that cash deposits represented sale proceeds received on farmers' behalf, incidental to commission income. AO could have cross-verified from Mandi Samiti records but didn't. Only real income taxable, AO erred by taxing receipts instead of commission income. CIT(A) also deleted 25% disallowance of expenses made by AO, as assessee substantiated salary payments through evidence like employee confirmations, volume of Rs. 17 crore business necessitating manpower. ITAT found no infirmity in CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order based on evidence. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.