Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
421 to 440 of 95749 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The sales declared by the assessee were treated as bogus, leading to an addition u/s 69A. However, the CIT(A) found that the AO accepted the purchases, inventory, and net profit declared by the assessee. The AO's presumption that the assessee rerouted their own funds was not backed by material evidence. Consequently, the addition was dismissed. Regarding reassessment proceedings, the approval granted u/s 151 was invalid as it was granted for another person's assessment, with the reason merely recorded as 'yes', indicating a mechanical approval. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings itself was held as bad in law, and the assessment made in the assessee's case was set aside. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The sales declared by the assessee were treated as bogus, leading to an addition u/s 69A. However, the CIT(A) found that the AO accepted the purchases, inventory, and net profit declared by the assessee. The AO's presumption that the assessee rerouted their own funds was not backed by material evidence. Consequently, the addition was dismissed. Regarding reassessment proceedings, the approval granted u/s 151 was invalid as it was granted for another person's assessment, with the reason merely recorded as 'yes', indicating a mechanical approval. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings itself was held as bad in law, and the assessment made in the assessee's case was set aside. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
