Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Addition to assessee's income by enhancing closing stock value made by Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) was based solely on statement recorded during survey without any incriminating material. As per S Kader Khan Sons [2007 (7) TMI 182 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], statement recorded u/s 133A has no evidentiary value, and addition cannot be made based on such admission during survey. AO relied on gross profit rate declared during survey, but CIT(A) noted AO did not provide basis for adopting 17.43% rate instead of overall 13.08%. AO cannot make additions based on surmises and conjectures without rejecting books of account. CIT(A) examined consistent gross profit rates over previous years and deleted the addition. AO did not disallow purchases but enhanced closing stock, potentially affecting opening stock in subsequent year. Revenue's appeal against CIT(A) order was dismissed.
Addition to assessee's income by enhancing closing stock value made by Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) was based solely on statement recorded during survey without any incriminating material. As per S Kader Khan Sons [2007 (7) TMI 182 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], statement recorded u/s 133A has no evidentiary value, and addition cannot be made based on such admission during survey. AO relied on gross profit rate declared during survey, but CIT(A) noted AO did not provide basis for adopting 17.43% rate instead of overall 13.08%. AO cannot make additions based on surmises and conjectures without rejecting books of account. CIT(A) examined consistent gross profit rates over previous years and deleted the addition. AO did not disallow purchases but enhanced closing stock, potentially affecting opening stock in subsequent year. Revenue's appeal against CIT(A) order was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
